On April 11, 2013 BART authorized an additional $300,000 (above the $99,000 the GM previously approved on October 3, 2012 for $350/hr plus travel, accommodations and other expenses) to hire Veolia Transit and their VP of Labor Relations, Thomas P. Hock, as the Chief Negotiator for ATU & SEIU contract negotiations on top of other consultants and their Labor Relations Department.
Examples of discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims
Ex-­‐city bus firm settles racial suit Former PTM workers to share $450,000
May 18, 2007 12:09 AM
Six employees of a company that once managed public buses in Colorado Springs will split a $450,000 settlement announced Thursday in a case alleging harassment from other workers.
The targeted workers said they feared for their safety at the Colorado Springs operation because others routinely used slurs about race and national origin. The other workers talked about shooting, gassing or killing blacks, Hispanics and Asians, according to court documents.
One employee reportedly said of blacks: “If I had my way I’d gas them like Hitler did the Jews.”
Managers of Professional Transit Management did nothing to stop the harassment and sometimes participated in it, according to a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Ohio-­‐based PTM admitted no wrongdoing, but it agreed to pay the former workers a settlement and put employees through training about racial harassment.
PTM President Tom Hock declined to discuss the settlement Thursday, saying he hadn’t seen the document. Read more: http://www.gazette.com/news/transit-­‐22500-­‐employees-­‐settlement.html#ixzz2QPusrAaM
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐

Shazor files racial discrimination lawsuit against transit authority
Former Metro bus system CEO Marilyn Shazor has filed a lawsuit against Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority and Professional Transit Management Inc., alleging they illegally discriminated against her because of her race and sex.
Shazor, who was fired in August 2010, was appointed as Metro’s CEO in July 2006. As CEO, she was an employee of Professional Transit Management Inc., of Loveland, which provides services to Metro under contract with SORTA. She was initially replaced on an interim basis by Tom Hock, president and CEO of Professional Transit Management. Hock was also named as a defendant in Shazor’s lawsuit...The suit alleges that Shazor’s “allegiance ... to SORTA often put her in conflict with PTM, her legal employer.” Shazor had favored SORTA over PTM as operator of the proposed Cincinnati streetcar project. Sharon also angered PTM executive Tom Hock by questioning his effort to secure a SORTA strategic business planning contract for his wife, the suit says. PTM officials attempted to undermine Shazor by delaying her 2008 evaluation for four months and declining to conduct a 2009 evaluation, an “untimely and arbitrary” process not applied to White and male employees, the lawsuit states. Terry Garcia Crews was hired as the new general manager of CEO of Metro in November.
The Cincinnati Herald, Front Page 03/19/11
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
SORTA dropped from Shazor discrimination lawsuit
The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority has been dismissed as one of the three defendants in a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by Marilyn Shazor, who was fired as the Chief Executive Offi cer of its transit system, Metro, in August 2010 by Professional Transit Management, with whom SORTA contracted her services.
Nathaniel R. Jones and Michael L. Cioffi of Blank Rome LLP, counsel for Shazor, state that Ms. Shazor will continue to press her claim of discrimination against PTM and Thomas Hock whom she states were responsible for her termination.

Examples of provoking strikes, negotiating in bad faith, serious conflicts of interest and profiteering from privatizing
Sun Tran threatens 2nd strike in year by Nadia T. Villagran on Jul. 10, 1998, under News
NADIA T. VILLAGRÁN Citizen Staff Writer
Another Sun Tran bus strike is possible next month, after workers voted yesterday to walk off the job if a new contract lacks increased wages and benefits they say the city promised last year.
Workers went on strike for 6 1/2 days before accepting a one-­‐year contract last Aug. 19, with the city vowing to increase wages and benefits in the 1998-­‐99 budget.
”That is the promise that the mayor and council used to get us back to work,” said Dan Linhart, a Sun Tran maintenance supervisor and a member of the union’s negotiating team.
That figure is nearly four times what the city has set aside for Sun Tran, said Thomas P. Hock, contract negotiator with Ryder. He said the city’s offer is $1.3 million.
Tucson Citizen.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
El Metro runs today Contract deadline extended 24 hours to midnight tonight
May 21, 2001 BY JESSICA KENT Times staff writer
"For example, Thursday, Peter Behrman (LMI negotiator) was out of town, wasn't even available for negotiations," Koehn said. "On Friday at noon, their chief negotiator (Thomas Hock) left town, so they've been negotiating without him."
Hock was hired by the transportation board at $150 per hour to represent LMI during the negotiations. "And (the other negotiators) are not really sure about what they're doing," Koehn said. "They wanted an extension as of last Friday."
Another problem with negotiations, Koehn claimed, is that LMI tried to do everything "last minute."
Policy items could have been dealt with a long time ago, and this time could have been spent on money issues, Koehn complained.

"This has been some of the toughest negotiations we've ever had to do, and this is my fourth contract, so it has not been easy," he said.
Behrman said LMI agreed to the one-­‐day extension and was preparing to continue negotiations for a few more hours Sunday evening and all day Monday.
Behrman said officials expect to know Monday afternoon whether negotiations succeeded or if a strike will take place.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, July 18, 2001
BARGAIN PAY: The other day we told you about the more than $700,000 BART has spent so far on the salaries of some 38 workers and 14 managers who have been holed up for more than three months trying to negotiate new labor contracts.
Well, as it turns out, BART also has a whole list of expensive, outside consultants lending a hand on the talks
as well.
For instance, Thomas P. Hock & Associates, the chief outside negotiator assigned to deal with one of BART's unions, has been paid $50,000 so far -­‐-­‐ and is authorized to receive nearly twice that amount, BART
officials confirmed.
A second outside negotiator, Bruce Conhain & Gummerson, has likewise been paid $50,000 to work on a new BART police contract.
John A. Dash & Associates has been paid $10,000 for a salary survey of other transit districts.
Shannon & Associates has received $5,000 for police survey data related to the negotiations, and is authorized to receive as much as $49,500.
And although outside media man Sam Singer has not submitted any bills yet, BART officials tell us his going rate is anywhere from $90 to $300 an hour.
Like we said, these bargaining talks don't come cheap.

50 Who Influenced Public Transportation
July 2004
Thomas Hock It is impossible to measure the impact Thomas Hock, president of Professional Transit Management Ltd. (PTM) in Loveland, Ohio, has had on the transportation industry since 1974. Working primarily as a labor negotiator and consultant, both with PTM and ATE Management and Service Inc., Hock has handled a vast number of transit management contracts and arguably become the most recognizable labor negotiator in the history of public transit. Says Mary McLain, general manager at TRANSPO in South Bend, Ind., “Because he served as head negotiator for multitudes of companies in their labor agreements, his influence spans decades of transit employees’ pay, benefits and work culture.”
METRO Magazine
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Strike looms over transit labor talks By K.C. MYERS,staff writer
February 04, 2007
In a day of fast-­‐moving developments yesterday, members of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1548, which represents RTA workers, rejected an offer by Professional Transit Management at a meeting held at the VFW hall in Hyannis, said Charles Ryan III, president of Local 1548.
Members left the meeting prepared to go on strike starting Saturday, because the company insisted the contract on the table was a ''fast and final offer,'' and nothing, not even a strike, would change it.
Ryan said he'd never in 20 years of union work had such a take-­‐it-­‐or-­‐leave-­‐it response. ''Usually they'll want to negotiate,'' Ryan said.
But only a few hours after the morning meeting to reject the contract and begin strike planning, a mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in Washington, D.C., contacted the union and the company owner, Tom Hock, who was in Arizona. The mediator got Hock to agree to a meeting scheduled for Feb. 12, Ryan said. If no agreement is reached at that meeting, the workers would go on strike Feb. 17, he said.
''I'm happy,'' Ryan said. ''Last we heard was take it or leave it. Obviously, if they're willing to meet, there's something they're willing to do. So it's good news.''
The RTA provided more than 600,000 rides in 2005.
Longtime rider Jane Perry of Hatchville said union contracts often get settled in dramatic last-­‐minute finales, but never in 20 years has there been a strike.
Professional Transit Management just took over management of the RTA last year. And this company went through a 66-­‐day strike in Worcester two years ago, Maragnano said.

Ryan said the union offered to go into arbitration earlier, which would stave off a strike in favor of an agreement decided by an unbiased arbiter. But the company said no.
Along with rejecting the contract, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. It stated that the company refused to meet at reasonable times to negotiate a new contract, and so the company's ''action has put the union in the untenable position of initiating a strike,'' it stated.

Cap Met Axes Labor Relations Manager Position
Transit authority's union concerned about unexpected move's impact on upcoming negotiations BY WELLS DUNBAR, FRI JULY 27, 2007
The next round of contract talks is scheduled for early August. Wyatt will have assistance from the national transit union, while StarTran/Cap Metro has acquired the assistance of attorney Tom Hock, co-­‐founder of Loveland, Ohio-­‐based Professional Transit Management. According to PTM's website, the agency was created "to offer flexible, cost effective solutions to meeting the executive management and labor relations needs of the American transit industry"; in May, PTM, operating as Springs Transit, settled a racial discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $450,000.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Firm that employed Metrolink engineer had other troubles September 29, 2008|Jeff Gottlieb | Times Staff Writer
Six months ago, four companies were competing for the shuttle service at Fort Lauderdale-­‐Hollywood International Airport in Florida. Each of the 10 members on the selection committee agreed that the current operator, ShuttlePort, was ranked last and would not be renewed.
In 2007, ShuttlePort drivers had been involved in two fatal accidents -­‐-­‐ one of them a head-­‐on collision between two of its vans -­‐-­‐ killing a total of three people. An investigation found that 10 ShuttlePort employees should not have been allowed to drive vans because their driving records violated the company's contract with Broward County.
The county auditor found that "ShuttlePort did not comply with contract provisions requiring compliance with safety laws and regulations for motor carriers and limiting driver points on their state of Florida motor vehicle records."
"I would certainly say that's a safety issue," Broward County Mayor Lois Wexler said.
ShuttlePort is a small part of Veolia Environnement, the massive French firm that employed Robert M. Sanchez, the engineer of the Metrolink train that crashed into a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth on Sept. 12,

killing 25 people, including himself, and injuring 135.
Through its Veolia Transportation division, the company bills itself as "the leading public transit operator in Europe, Australia and the USA, currently handling more than 2.5 billion passenger journeys a year." Veolia Transportation is the North American group that employed Sanchez.
The company runs rail systems, bus lines and taxi companies. It not only owns ShuttlePort but also SuperShuttle in Los Angeles and elsewhere. It runs Boston's commuter rail system, buses in Washington, D.C., Denver, Las Vegas, Connecticut and Texas. It runs light-­‐rail systems in Barcelona and the metro in Stockholm.
It operates buses for the disabled and elderly in Orange County and San Francisco, and has bus contracts with Victor Valley, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and Chico. Veolia runs the Los Angeles Department of Transportation's commuter express service and some of the DASH routes. Since June 2005, it has provided engineers for Metrolink, winning a contract that Amtrak used to hold.
Veolia Transportation is one of four divisions of Veolia Environnement, which is the world's largest water company, operating wastewater and tap water systems for municipalities and industrial clients. The firm has $48 billion in total annual revenue and 320,000 employees in 64 countries.
Veolia traces its roots to a 150-­‐year old company that became Vivendi Universal. Vivendi spent $34 billion in 2000 to buy Seagram Co., which owned Universal Studios, the theme parks and music group, transforming the firm into the world's second-­‐largest media company. As the combined company tottered on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of its debt, it spun off its water division, which changed its name to Veolia and grew into a transportation giant through acquisitions.
But with the transport business have come some complaints, ranging from buses and trains arriving late, to poor maintenance and record keeping, to the problems in Florida.
A Veolia spokeswoman said safety was a top priority. "We rigorously train, enforce, audit, we measure, we communicate," said Ruth Otte, Veolia's executive vice president of marketing and communications. "Safety is a foundation of what we do. There are times, when you drive as many millions of miles as we drive in heavy congested traffic, there are occasionally accidents. Human beings drive vehicles, and sometimes there are accidents."
Drew Jones, vice president for safety and security, touted the safety record of the company's buses. He said that last year, the company averaged 0.42 accidents per 100,000 miles driven. The latest national figures, he said, were 1.55 accidents per 100,000 miles driven in 2005.
Metrolink's board chairman, however, wondered in a recent interview how Veolia had hired Sanchez, the engineer in the Chatsworth crash. Ron Roberts, a nine-­‐year board member and a Temecula city councilman, said he was surprised to read that Sanchez had been convicted of shoplifting in 2002.
"I'm kind of surprised that a company we contract with let him do what he does," Roberts said.

Erica Swerdlow, a spokeswoman for Veolia in North America, said the National Transportation Safety Board, which was investigating the Metrolink accident, had told the company not to comment about Sanchez. "It's amazing to me a board chairman would make such a comment when he's not supposed to comment about Rob Sanchez or anything to do with Metrolink," she said.
Company policy, she said, is that someone who has committed a felony in the previous seven years is not eligible to be hired. Someone who has committed a misdemeanor during that same period can be hired, depending on how the crime relates to the job, she said.
Veolia employees contacted by The Times declined to speak, citing a confidentiality agreement promising not to talk to the media. Swerdlow said the agreement is standard in the transportation industry. Violating the clause can lead to a range of disciplinary action, she said. The company refused to provide The Times with a copy of the policy.
After the Chatsworth crash, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ordered a "top to bottom review" of all city contracts with Veolia as a precautionary move, a spokesman said.
There have been problems elsewhere.
In Orange County, Veolia, which provides the county's paratransport service, was fined at least $1.3 million for failing to pick up disabled people at scheduled times. Veolia officials blamed the county's size and congestion. They told Orange County Transportation Authority officials that Veolia hadn't hired enough drivers and had problems training them and that new software had caused scheduling difficulties.
In March 2007, the OCTA board gave the company 60 days to improve or lose the contract. Last month, OCTA approved a three-­‐year extension with Veolia.
In Gwinnett County, Ga., outside Atlanta, Veolia was sharply criticized in an August 2007 audit of the bus system for its safety, training and maintenance procedures.
Phil Boyd, the county transit division director, said that according to the audit, records were so badly kept that it was hard to tell what procedures had been followed. He said fire extinguishers had not been inspected and there were problems with the mechanics' training records.
"There's some lack of maintenance," Boyd said. "I wouldn't go so far as to say it was intentional." When you don't have good records, you may not recognize things that need to be done, he said.
He said that since Veolia was put on a weekly reporting program, its work has improved.
In Australia earlier this year, a Veolia-­‐owned company was fined a record $8.2 million for late and canceled trains. Otte said the tardiness was the result of increased ridership.
Veolia also has encountered problems at Boston's commuter rail system, the fifth-­‐largest in the country. Veolia

owns 60% of the consortium that operates the trains for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
The NTSB found that a 2007 collision between a train and a maintenance truck, in which two workers were killed, probably was caused by a failure to follow safety procedures. The NTSB found that a dispatcher had failed to provide proper signaling and that the workers did not use equipment that would have given them additional protection.
In addition, according to reports in the Boston Globe, the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad was taken to task for late trains and malfunctioning air conditioning.
In Southern California, Veolia faces a class-­‐action suit charging the company did not always give its bus drivers their required lunch or rest breaks. A federal judge Thursday consolidated two lawsuits into one case. Plaintiffs in both cases were bus drivers in the Antelope Valley.
"Sometimes she had to eat with food on her lap," said Brian Kabateck, attorney for Carmen Hita. "To us it's about the safety of the driver and the passenger." The other driver, Sonya Williams, says in her suit that the air conditioning in her bus broke down and her supervisor refused to relieve her.
Firefighters treated her for heat exhaustion, said Matthew Theriault, one of her attorneys.
James N. Foster, an attorney for Veolia, said that because of changes in regulations, many private transport companies have been sued on similar grounds. He said two cases against Veolia have been settled with confidentiality clauses.
"Veolia strives to be a leader in compliance," he said.
latimes.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Cap Metro Aftertaste: No Love Lost
November 21 2008 By Lee Nichols
The Nov. 12 vote officially brought an end to a three-­‐day strike and 18 months of working without a contract...
”It’s like going into a fight with a bear with a toothpick. Capital Metro has a lot of money and the best union avoidance attorney in the country,“ referring to the company’s chief negotiator, Tom Hock of Ohio-­‐based Professional Transit Management.
Wyatt also leveled some serious accusations at capital Metro about its conduct during the strike. “They lied to y’all and told y'all that they had a quarter of the people back at work,” he said. “They brought in people from out of town the weren’t even driving the buses. They were taking the buses out on the streets and parking them on the street. They weren’t picking up people.... They were taking buses out and parking them, because

they didn't know the city and were getting lots all over the place.“
“Look at all this tax money they wasted," he went on accusing StarTran of paying replacement workers high wages “to bust this union” and putting them up in hotels. “They could have just negotiated the contract.”
The Austin Chronicle
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Three Fires in Five Months Is Blemish on Gwinnett County Bus Line
Posted on Jun 23, 2009
Public transportation patrons in Gwinnett County have to be wondering how safe their bus rides are to downtown Atlanta. In the span of five months, there were three fires on the bus line. The first occurred in September, 2006, the second in December and the third, in February, of this year. The December fire ruined one bus while the blaze delayed traffic for hours on I-­‐85 near Spaghetti Junction.
Audit Reveals Engine Mechanical Problems
What may be worse is a scathing county audit on Veolia, the company which operates the 76-­‐vehicle bus line. The report was made public in May, just one month after the county signed a five-­‐year, $60 million contract to continue service with the Oak Brook, Il.-­‐based carrier.
Specifically, a report obtained by the Atlanta Journal-­‐Constitution (AJC) cited the lack of qualified auto mechanics. The report said only one mechanic was “expert,” while two mechanics operated below this level. Remaining mechanics were referred to as “novices.” There were over 6 million passenger boardings on the line in 2006, according to the AJC.
But bad publicity hasn’t bothered Phil Boyd, transit director for Gwinnett County, who praised Veolia for making progress. “We feel they are on the right track,” he said. “They have made improvements in maintenance and maintenance records and have hired people to take them to the next, highest level of training.”
Company Revamps Mechanic Staff, Upgrades Engines
As for the fires, Veolia claims they were caused by a deficient engine part. An auditor hired by Gwinnett County determined the cause of the fire to be manufacturer design flaws in the engine. Veolia informed the county it will replace suspect parts and increase preventive maintenance to assure rider safety. Veolia will move into a new facility in Norcross in early October. With the change in scenery comes a new maintenance director, mechanic and trainer of mechanics, according to Veolia President John Autry.
But some bus drivers still question Veolia’s safety record. “From what I hear, the equipment is still not safe,” said Oliver Hooks, spokesman for the Gwinnett bus drivers union. “The air conditioning doesn’t work and horns

don’t work. Drivers say the company’s view is to, ‘Drive the buses until they stop running.’”
The Gwinnett County bus line began six years ago with 17 buses. In 2006, the five-­‐year, $26.8-­‐million contract of McDonald Transit expired, inviting new bids. In May of 2006, the county awarded Veolia a five-­‐year pact.
ajc.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
CEO: Cap Metro must be transparent
Watson announces new contracting reforms
Updated: Friday, 10 Sep 2010, 8:39 PM CDT Published : Friday, 10 Sep 2010, 7:18 PM CDT
AUSTIN (KXAN) -­‐ Capital Metro’s new CEO Linda Watson intends to cast a closer eye on future business decisions to avoid any potential conflicts of interest for the transit agency or its contractors.
The reforms, she said, were prompted by questions about an out-­‐of-­‐state negotiator hired to represent Cap Metro in its contract dispute with the labor union. The labor union now has raised questions as to whether the negotiator was completely impartial.
Watson cited concerns raised over the agency's hiring of out-­‐of-­‐state negotiator Tom Hock, an attorney licensed in Ohio but not in Texas. Hock’s primary business is a company called Professional Transit Management. PTM provides transit services for a number of cities.
When Capital Metro hired Hock to negotiate a 2008 labor contract with the union representing its bus drivers, things did not go well. Union negotiators blame Hock’s unwillingness to bargain.
"Tom Hock had no intention of negotiating anything,” said Bill Kweder, ATU Local 1091 spokesperson. “It was my impression from the beginning that he was intent on pushing us to a strike."
And strike they did. For three days, drivers were off the job before a compromise was reached. When that compromise was reached, it had nothing to do with Hock, Kweder said.
"The person who made a difference in the negotiations was Senator Kirk Watson,” said Kweder.
Once negotiations were over, the union was notified in a matter of days that Cap Metro was reassigning five routes to other contractors. One route went to First Transit. The other four went to Veolia Transportation. What the union didn't know, however, is that during the negotiations, Tom Hock sold his transit company to Veolia and became their employee.
"He never said a word about selling his company,” Kweder said.
Kweder said he believes Hock’s involvement in the negotiations, once he had sold his company, was a conflict

of interest, and it should have been disclosed. Hock's new employer Veolia benefited directly from the outcome of those labor negotiations.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
New chief shakes up Capital Metro management team
Updated: 1:12 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2010 | Posted: 8:21 p.m. Friday, Oct. 15, 2010
Garcia Crews had given about a month's notice after accepting a job as chief executive officer of Cincinnati's transit agency. Her departure was clouded by her ties to Capital Metro's former labor negotiator Tom Hock. Garcia Crews had worked for Hock's transit management company before coming to Capital Metro in early 2008 and had not left for Capital Metro when Hock's company was acquired by Veolia Transportation.
Veolia, a Capital Metro contractor that had been operating some of the agency's bus routes, took over several more routes in the wake of a union strike in November 2008. Garcia Crews and Hock were intimately involved in the negotiations and labor stalemate that led to that strike.
Hock is the interim chief at the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, a job he will hand off shortly to Garcia Crews
Statesman.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
METRO NAMES TWO NEW TOP EXECUTIVES
Hock and Evans join Metro as chief officers reporting to CEO
CINCINNATI – Metro has appointed two executives to top positions in the organization: Lou Ann Hock as Chief
Financial Officer and Inez Evans as Chief Operations Officer. Both report to Metro’s CEO, Terry Garcia Crews.
Lou Ann Hock: Hock is responsible for Metro’s $85.5 million annual operating budget, capital program, grants administration, fuel hedging, and investments. The Controller and Accounting & Budget report to her. With more than 30 years of transit experience including 11 years in executive transit finance, Hock has served as Metro’s Interim Chief Financial Officer since August 2010.
Hock worked at Professional Transit Management, where she was the Chief Financial Officer. She started her transit career in St. Louis, Mo., with Rustman Bus Company and at Ryder Student Transportation, where she served as the Regional Vice President. She resides in Pierce Township in Clermont County.

SORTA/Metro is currently run by CEO & General Manager Terry Garcia Crews (frequent co-­‐ defendant in lawsuits against Thomas Hock) and Chief Financial Officer Lou Ann Hock (Thomas Hock’s wife).
WRTA bus strike looms
Saturday, November 6, 2010
The union is suspicious of the timing of a series of executive sessions of the WRTA Advisory Board, with the final one coming one day after this week's election; Mr. Carney then declared an impasse yesterday when Mr. Bruce said there is none. Mr. Bruce said the union was led to believe by Mr. Carney and Thomas P. Hock, RTA's lead negotiator, that they would negotiate for as long as it takes to reach an agreement.
WRTA Administrator Stephen F. O'Neil said the transit authority was hoping since the union's rejection of the final offer Oct. 3 that it would make a counterproposal and was not waiting for the election to be over. When that didn't happen, he said, the Advisory Board on Wednesday “decided let's impose the last best offer” and voted 12-­‐0 to do that.
Telegram.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Tempe bus drivers join Phoenix colleagues in bus strike
Posted on March 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Updated Saturday, Mar 10 at 7:40 PM
PHOENIX and TEMPE, Ariz. -­‐-­‐ Tempe officials say more than 300 bus drivers are on strike after labor talks broke down.
City officials said in a statement Saturday that Amalgamated Transit Union local 1433 has called a strike for the 310 drivers who operate on lines serving Tempe.
The announcement came hours after more than 600 Phoenix drivers walked off the job just after midnight. Veolia Transportation Services and the union failed to end a nearly two-­‐year dispute over wage and benefit terms such as sick-­‐leave accrual, retirement benefits and health care coverage.
Altogether, 31 routes in Phoenix and 19 in Tempe are affected, but those routes also serve neighboring cities that make up the metropolitan Phoenix area.
Veolia negotiator Thomas Hock says there's a contract offer on the table that includes raises over five years. -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐

Who is Veolia Transportation?
Pulitzer winner on poor state of public transit & ATU’s fight to save it
A truthdig.com column – Sweatshops on Wheels – by Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Chris Hedges is a must read on how public transportation has deteriorated since 2008 and what the ATU is doing to fix it.
Hedges spoke with ATU International President Larry Hanley about the critical issues impacting mass transit and reveals that it’s all “part of the relentless seizing and harvesting of public resources and programs by corporations. Public-­‐sector unions are being broken. Wages and benefits are being slashed. Workers are forced to put in longer hours in unsafe workplaces.”
Where is all that taxpayer money going? “Of the top three multinationals that control U.S. transport,” Hedges reports, “only one – MV Transportation – is based here. FirstGroup, a multibillion-­‐dollar corporation headquartered in the U.K. owns First Student, which operates 54,000 school buses in 38 states and nine Canadian provinces. FirstGroup also has a controlling stake in Greyhound.”
“Veolia Transportation, a conglomerate headquartered in France, has 150 contracts to run mass transit systems in the U.S." It was Veolia, after Hurricane Katrina, he writes, “that took over the New Orleans bus system, and stripped bus workers of their pensions as it has done elsewhere.”
Hedges notes that Veolia “is partly owned by a pension fund that covers one-­‐third of French citizens.” U.S. workers, therefore, are losing their benefit plans to a company created to provide benefit plans for the French!
But they want even more: “[They successfully] lobbied the Senate last year to include a call for privatization in the highway bill which mandates the federal government to undertake feasibility studies to privatize the nation’s mass transit on behalf of French, British and American transportation corporations.”
“I am watching as 80 percent of transit systems have had to raise fares or cut service since the recession,” says Hanley. “These are the worst conditions for mass transit since the Depression.”
Hedges also documents the problems of deregulation in the intercity bus industry, highlighting the problem of driver fatigue because of a loophole in federal law that exempts intercity bus drivers from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, forcing many to work second jobs during ‘rest periods’ to survive financially.
The result: “Three times as many passengers and workers over the last five years were killed in bus accidents than plane crashes.”
The number of over-­‐the-­‐road bus companies has risen from 3,000 to 152,000 since President Reagan deregulated the industry. “These fly-­‐by-­‐night bus companies, union officials say, are little more than ‘sweatshops on wheels.’”
Hanley says about this problem, “People now have to drive a bus 100 hours a week to make a living. Whenever you hear about one of these buses rolling off the highway, I can tell you with 95% certainty that the driver fell

asleep.”
Hedges highlights ATU successful efforts to build rider groups in towns and cities to save public transportation.
Hanley “maintains that communities have to save their public transportation systems because no politician, Republican or Democrat, is prepared to step in and do it for them. But with 10 million riders per day on public buses, there is the potential for organizing.”

Originally named Compagnie Generale des Eaux in 1853, the French multi-­‐national Vivendi Universal had over a third of the directors of its main board under investigation for corruption in 1996. Vivendi Universal sold off a majority stake in its water subsidiary, Vivendi Environment and renamed it Veolia in 2002 after a decade-­‐long merger spree. The company sought to jettison its debt load with their credit rating reduced to 'junk' status and the forced resignation of former CEO, Jean-­‐Marie Messier. He was convicted and fined a million dollars for fraud by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission, and denied a $25 million severance package in addition to fines and a conviction in France. Veolia has hundreds of subsidiaries in dozens of countries; various names for Veolia exist under the same umbrella: US Filter, Apa Nova, United Water, PVK, General-­‐Des-­‐Eaux, Onyx Environmental, Dalkia, Veolia Water North America, Connex, etc... See a 2005 report by Public Citizen titled Veolia Environment: A Corporate Profile and a 2011 report by Food and Water Watch titled Veolia Environnement: A Profile of the World's Largest Water Service Corporation for more information on Veolia's history as a corporation.
Profits over people...
Veolia is the largest water privatization business in the world, and has come under attack by water rights activists for many of its contracts that reveal consistent prioritization of private profit at the expense of the environment and public interest. See the 2011 report by Food & Water Watch for more information. While public facilities are accountable to the public, often creating increased transparency and efficiency, private facilities are not. If a company chooses to abuse its privilege by hiking up price rates or cutting costs in ways that are detrimental to the public, it is much more difficult to fight. Worldwide, consumers report that Veolia consistently charges high rates, provides poor service, and fails to make promised improvements.
As highlighted in a report prepared by Novato Friends of Locally Operated Wastewater as part of their campaign against this company, Veolia has additionally shown a lack of care for public welfare by:
_ Cost-­‐cutting and lack of proper oversight
_ High staffing turnover and failure to attract experienced staff
_ "Regional Response" plans slow down emergency responses
_ Liability assignment provisions skirt full responsibility
_ Contract fee schedules encourage maintenance deferrals & substandard equipment use while discouraging

water conservation efforts
Veolia contracts gone bad...
***These examples from the United States are compiled from the 2009 report by Food & Water Watch titled Money Down the Drain: How Private Control of Water Wastes Public Resources, a 2010 Food & Water Watch Factsheet titled A Closer Look: Veolia Environnement, a 2011 report by Food and Water Watch titled Veolia Environnement: A Profile of the World's Largest Water Service Corporation, and a report prepared by Novato Friends of Locally Operated Wastewater titled Veolia and the Environment: A Bad Fit for Novato.
California
Burlingame, CA
Veolia settled out of court when sued under the Clean Water Act for dumping more than 10 million gallons of wastewater and untreated sewage over a 5 year period into the San Francisco Bay after creating an inadequate improvement project.
Richmond, CA
Veolia and Richmond settled out of court when sued for dumping more than 17 million gallons of sewage into tributaries after initiating a capital improvement project. Voters approved a $20 million bond to pay for sewer repairs, which Richmond used to privatize its sewers over three years and then sign a 20-­‐year, $70 million contract with Veolia.
Taxpayers had to shell out $500,000 annually to compensate for related property damage. In 2008, the plant had 22 spills of more than 2 million gallons of sewage.
Connecticut
Bridgeport, CN
Mayor convicted on 16 counts including taking kickbacks, bribes and extortion, along with 8 other defendants over a PSG (Vivendi) contract proposal.
Danbury, CN
In a short-­‐sighted attempt to balance its municipal budget, the city leased its sewers in exchange for a $10 million upfront payment, at $22 million overall expense.
Delaware
Wilmington, DE
Failures to upgrade and repair, have resulted in years of sewage spills; environmental violations; state fines; horrendously foul odors; sewage overflow outlets which annually send over a billion gallons of contaminated wastewater into area waterways; and contract disputes over a 55% rate hike.
Idaho
Burley, ID
In 2009, after cancelling its wastewater contract with Veolia, the city had to make thousands of dollars in repairs to the treatment plant because of the company's neglect and poor maintenance.

Indiana
Indianapolis, IN
Veolia has been sued for breaking state contract law, and for overcharging 250,000 residents. Non-­‐union employees have had pension, health care and benefits cut $50 million over the 20-­‐year contract. With the second worst drinking water in the country, a grand jury has subpoenaed four Veolia employees for allegations of falsifying water reports amid accusations by city and county officials that Veolia was skimping on staffing, water testing, maintenance and chemicals.
Iowa
Tama, IA
In 2011, the city sought to end a 20-­‐year contract with Veolia because it believed the city could save money with a public operation.
Louisiana
New Orleans, LA
Consideration of a bid containing uncertainties, inadequacies, and omissions cost the city $5 million. Failure to take action on a known equipment problem resulted in an electrical fire. Raw sewage backed up into the East Bank Sewage Treatment Plant and was diverted into the Mississippi River for two hours. An executive was convicted of bribery in seeking wastewater contract extension and fined $3 million.
Massachusetts
Lee, MA
Lee rejected a bid that seemed to be a scheme to turn the city's wastewater treatment facilities into a regional waste plant/Veolia profit stream.
Lynn, MA
The city was forced to end a weak contract that left it liable for expenses due to sewer overflows and flooding as a result of poor design or workmanship of system upgrades and an expired letter of credit. The city lost $22 million.
Rockland, MA
A forensic audit led to a contract termination amid embezzlement charges involving a sewer department official and a local company executive, charged with embezzling more than US$300,000.
Ohio
West Carrollton, OH
An explosion at Veolia Environmental Service's plant injured two workers, damaged over a dozen homes within a mile radius from the blast, caused $50 million in damage to the plant itself.
Pennsylvania
Meadville, PN
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) fined Veolia ES Solid Waste of Pennsylvania Inc. $160,278 for violations related to vehicle licensing and failing to abide by the terms of its permit and more than $11,200 for residual and municipal waste violations amid complaints a Veolia truck driver draining an estimated 100erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

18

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

gallons of dilute coolant and rust preventative into a storm drain leading to the Driftwood Branch of Sinnemahoning Creek.
Cameron and Centre Counties, PN
Veolia was also fined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for municipal and residual waste violations in Cameron and Centre Counties.
Rhode Island
Woonsocket, RI
Years of serious sewage spills, violations and fines followed kept the city's plant out of Clean Water Act compliance including seven informal enforcement actions and five formal actions and the plant's manager had to attend a remedial training program, sponsored by the state.
Texas
Angleton, TX
Failure to maintain adequate staffing levels, submit capital project reports, and charging expenses properly led to a contract termination a lawsuit for breached contract.
Houston, TX
A federal investigation into the financial transactions of high-­‐profile consultants hired to lobby city officials in unsuccessful bids. After a legal battle with Veolia's competitor, the city expects to save 17%, or $2 million in public operation.
Fighting back against Veolia...
Even throughout Veolia's home base of France, communities have begun taking back their water systems from Veolia mismanagement. In its home city of Paris in 2009, after a 25-­‐year contract, the city decided not to renew its contract with Veolia in order to stabilize water rates and save money-­‐-­‐which it has. In Belgium, Germany, Romania, and around the world, municipalities are taking back their water systems from Veolia and restoring public control to improve operations.
Locally, campaigns have sprung up against the company as well; for instance, in Novato the Committee for No on F organized in 2010 to veto Veolia's privatization of their wastewater treatment plant. They were ultimately unsuccessful by a very narrow margin, yet are noteworthy for the impressive coalition that joined around this issue -­‐ including the Sierra Club, Green Party, Marin United Taxpayers Association and California Healthy Communities Network. See here for their report, titled: Veolia and the Environment: A Bad Fit for Novato.
The end of an era...
Veolia's offences are beginning to be reflected in their profit margin, which has plummeted since 2008, especially in the area of water. As this article explains, Veolia is expecting a downturn, and has lost more than half its market value this year. Veolia has already experienced economic slowdown for several years, due to contract losses in Paris, Italy, and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the implementation of a cost-­‐cutting program. The current CEO has pledged to sell $1.8 billion of its assets in 2011 and to stop operations in at least 37erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

19

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

countries. Another article adds that Veolia has disclosed accounting fraud in the U.S. from 2007-­‐2010 amounting to $120 million, which took place in their Marine Services unit in the Gulf of Mexico. As of August 2011, Veolia shares had dropped 28% since the issuing of their profit warning.

Mayor Gordon May Be Remembered Most for Compromising His Ethics for the Woman He Loved
By Monica Alonzo Thursday, Sep 29 2011
One of the companies that employed Elissa Mullany while she was Gordon's girlfriend was Veolia Transportation, which has a five-­‐year, more-­‐than-­‐$380 million contract with the city to operate its bus fleet.
Mayor Phil Gordon first professed support for Veolia Transportation to win the city's huge bus contract at a June 2009 City Council meeting. The mayor's endorsement came even before competing business proposals were on the table and during a time when his relationship with Elissa Mullany was the stuff of City Hall rumors.
Causing concern, after the mayor said he wanted the contract to go to Veolia, was that the company had hired Mullany, his then-­‐alleged love interest, as a consultant in 2007 and still was cutting her checks as it competed for the city's business.
Though Gordon insisted that she was just a good friend, Mullany spent a lot of time at the Mayor's Office as the contract was getting decided. Sometimes wearing revealing attire, she would flirt with the mayor in front of office staff.
When Mayor Phil Gordon announced officially on December 8, 2009, that he was romantically involved with Elissa Mullany, he started refraining from votes tied to Veolia Transportation and the city bus contract — but only in public.
Behind the scenes, Gordon gave advice to the company on how to play hardball with the city.
Cash-­‐strapped Phoenix agreed in 2010 to pay $27.5 million over five years to Veolia, which had Mullany on its payroll.
Although he claimed he was not involved with decisions about Veolia and its contract, the mayor stepped into the fray from late March to early April 2010, when the company wasn't getting its way during contract negotiations with the city. Gordon advised Veolia executives to tell city transit officials that it would walk away from its city bus contract, a Veolia insider tells New Times.

Representatives for Gordon's office and Veolia both confirmed that a Veolia representative and Gordon discussed the Veolia contract, despite Gordon's conflict because of his relationship with Mullany. During one of their meetings, the mayor advised Billy Shields, his good friend and lobbyist for Veolia, to tell his client to walk away from its Phoenix contract because city officials wouldn't agree to the company's demands for more money, the source says.
When Veolia followed through and reneged on the contract it was awarded, Phoenix officials flew to Chicago, where they agreed to pay Veolia nearly $30 million worth of concessions.
Critics complain that Mayor Gordon put his girlfriend's and the company's interests ahead of the city's
On Veolia's payroll since 2007, Mullany was paid by the transportation company the entire time she and Gordon dated.
Mullany, who served as a consultant for Veolia, helped the firm land its latest Phoenix contract, which company officials call "one of the biggest of its kind in the United States."
Company officials also confirm that Mullany was directly involved in the Phoenix contract, though they characterize her role as "brief."
A Veolia spokeswoman says, "Part of Ms. Mullany's ongoing duties, among many, included helping with the oral-­‐presentation preparation. She did assist our staff in oral-­‐presentation training for the [proposal's] evaluation/interview panels. She had a brief role in a three-­‐day preparatory meeting."
Mullany was on a team coaching Veolia executives in November 2009 on how to answer questions posed by a city panel evaluating the two finalists for the bus contract — First Transit and Veolia.
The Veolia insider says Mullany advised company executives at that time on how to craft answers based on what the city wanted to hear.
Despite Mullany's role with the Phoenix contract and her romantic involvement with Gordon, the mayor still pulled strings behind the scenes, the source says.
Once Gordon declared a conflict of interest, according to the city's ethics policy, he no longer could participate in related city business in "any manner." But that didn't stop him from apparently actively participating during closed-­‐door executive sessions in 2010 involving Veolia.
Although the City Attorney's Office and Gordon refuse to release even a simple list of the elected officials present during these meetings on April 27 and May 11, several council members confirmed Gordon's

participation.
The city and Veolia were at odds over an expiring contract and a recently awarded contract, along with company executives' demands that Phoenix transit officials pay Veolia employees' pensions (which had become under-­‐funded because of economic downturns) and pay for unused sick leave.
Veolia negotiators weren't getting the city to budge, so they turned to Billy Shields, the Phoenix firefighters' union boss turned lobbyist.
Erica Swerdlow, spokeswoman for Veolia Transportation, denies that Gordon spoke directly to Veolia executives but concedes that the mayor suggested to the company how contract negotiations should be handled.
"He did indicate to our lobbyist, Billy Shields, that he had removed himself from any involvement in negotiations over the old contract but suggested that, in order to get the matter resolved with the city — which was in everyone's interest — we needed to get it elevated to the city-­‐manager level," Swerdlow says.
Apparently, Veolia's threatening to walk away from a city bus contract — leaving Phoenix with only two months of guaranteed bus service and the immediate need to find another transportation company — was an effective way of getting the city manager's attention.
After Gordon made his suggestion, the company told the city it was pulling out.
David Leibowitz, Gordon's hired spokesman, also confirmed the mayor's involvement but said Gordon did nothing wrong, much less illegal. He described Gordon's role as "minimal."
The mayor refused to speak directly to New Times on any matter related to this story, at one point insisting that all questions be submitted in writing to Leibowitz.
"What the mayor did do in reference to Veolia is affirm their belief that, in order to resolve the matter, they should elevate the negotiation conversation up the city's chain of command to the city manager. The mayor's thinking was, getting this resolved was in everyone's best interest and that the time had come to 'go upstairs,' so to speak," Leibowitz tells New Times in a statement.
Veolia fired off its written notice rejecting the five-­‐year, $388 million contract Phoenix had awarded the company, and City Manager David Cavazos promptly flew to Chicago with several employees to strike a deal with the company.
To settle the old contract, Cavazos made $27.5 million worth of concessions to Veolia for the pension and sick-­‐

leave payments and agreed not to recoup $681,000 that the Phoenix Public Transit Department already had mistakenly paid for employees' sick days between 2000 and 2009. Despite the fact that sick-­‐leave payments were — not the city's — responsibility, nobody in the city's transit department noticed that the firm had been billing Phoenix for the cost for almost nine years.
Still, the company wanted more — so city officials also rewrote part of the new contract.
Not only did Phoenix eliminate a $50,000-­‐a-­‐day fine if workers went on strike and postpone all fines (for such problems as late buses, employees out of uniform, or customer complaints) for four months, it also slipped a clause into the updated contract that essentially allows Veolia to wiggle out of future fines if it concludes they are unfair.
Despite these obvious changes, Phoenix officials denied that the latest bus contract was altered in any way during a federal inquiry into how the contract was awarded.
A New Times story about Gordon's involvement with the contract while his girlfriend was actively working to help the company land the deal prompted a probe by the Federal Transit Administration, which provides Phoenix the bulk of its transportation budget.
The investigation is ongoing, as are the generous breaks that Veolia is getting.
So far, Phoenix has waived more than $2 million in poor-­‐performance fines for Veolia, even though the fines
were supposed to encourage better service and accountability to the public.
When first bid on the bus contract, it objected to all fines the city planned to assess. City transit officials told that unless it withdrew the objections, the company could not bid on the contract. Company officials withdrew them and were awarded the new contract in January 2010.
Perhaps emboldened by having friends in high places, Veolia once again brought up the fines after it had locked in the new contract.
Corporate executives complained that the fines weren't fair because they didn't have enough time to prepare for the new contract. Phoenix officials simply folded, even though their own legal advisers believed that Veolia's claim had no merit since it had delayed signing the contract. City officials were left without many options, given there could be a lapse in bus service if the company walked away.
"It was a way to get this [new] contract signed," Assistant City Manager Ed Zuercher says about the overall settlement.

The depth of Gordon's involvement in Veolia negotiations is unknown because the City Attorney's Office has shielded the mayor from any public accountability, siding with him in favor of keeping certain documents under wraps.
But New Times discovered that the mayor's helping Veolia muscle money out of Phoenix was only one example of his aiding a company paying his girlfriend.
Gordon, Rose, and others knew Mullany was working for Ellman. Despite Rose's posturing, internal e-­‐mails between Gordon and Rose reveal that Mullany worked for Ellman for at least six months promoting investment opportunities for his development firm. Then came her job with Veolia to, among other things, help the company win the Phoenix bus contract.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Veolia Transportation Subpoenas Records From Yahoo, Union Boss, Others in Search of Who Leaked Unflattering Internal E-­‐Mails
By Monica Alonzo Fri., Feb. 4 2011 at 3:18 PM
Veolia Transportation is bent on finding out who leaked internal company
e-­‐mails.
While Veolia Transportation, the company that operates Phoenix city buses, is in the midst of contentious negotiations with the bus drivers' union, corporate executives are dropping subpoenas to gain access to union computers.
Corporate execs also got court approval to sift through records from Google, Yahoo, and Qwest to accomplish a mission -­‐-­‐ track down who leaked a batch of inappropriate internal company e-­‐mails.
The e-­‐mails, authored by Jim Wolf, one of the company's regional vice presidents, ended up in the hands of someone who forwarded them to the entire Phoenix City Council and to other city officials, to local media, and to company employees.
In the e-­‐mails, written while Veolia was competing for the Phoenix city-­‐bus contract, Wolf makes comments about giving a substantial raise to "lock-­‐in" a black Veolia manager because of her friendship with Debbie Cotton, Phoenix's Public Transit Director (also an African-­‐American woman.)
Wolf also refers to other high-­‐ranking Veolia executives as "a little boy scout" and a "leg shave'n fag." Regarding Dick Alexander, Veolia's senior vice president of business development, Wolf wrote: "Fuck Dick. It's easy to bid tight and blame the field. He's never run shit."
Wolf also took a swipe at the company's Phoenix partners when someone was complaining about his or her job. Wolf wrote: "Would you rather be here dealing with [Gregory] Torrez, CPLC [Chicanos Por La Causa] and

Dick Alexander. I can throw in a 90 minute call with MJ [Veolia's CEO Mark Joseph] if that sweetens the trade."
According to court records, Veolia execs have been trying to track down the owner of the e-­‐mail address from which those e-­‐mails originated. But, as one might expect, the e-­‐mail account comes back to an anonymous owner.
A federal judge granted the corporation the right to hire someone to peruse computers in search of evidence that might show that the e-­‐mail address was set up on one of the computers at the Amalgamated Transit Union, the only union with which Veolia hasn't been able to reach a contract agreement.
Wolf was the company's regional vice president and was heading up the Phoenix contract. And we emphasize "was."
Veolia sources tell New Times that Wolf was let go this week -­‐-­‐ nearly seven months after the e-­‐mails first started making their rounds. Check out the posting for his old job.
The e-­‐mails also detail increased salaries for Veolia execs, even when corporate officials were preaching the importance of making sacrifices during difficult economic times to justify cutting workers' wages. Company officials slashed Veolia's non-­‐union employees pay an average of 40 percent.
Veolia officials appear to have started hunting for the source of the e-­‐mail leaks soon after their new Phoenix bus contract got under way July 1, 2010.
The court granted permission on July 13 for Veolia to subpoena e-­‐mail records from Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft "for the sole purpose of ascertaining the identities" of the defendants in Veolia's lawsuit.
Veolia also had its eye on ATU president Bob Bean, one of the targets of the company's subpoenas, according to court records.
Veolia first tried to get at Bean's records on September 1, but courts granted Bean protection from Veolia's fishing expedition. But on October 14, the courts gave permission to Veolia to question Bean under oath and to hire a third party to gain access to computers used by Bean and the ATU.
The courts also allowed Veolia to access records at "hotels and other locations in Arizona and Atlanta that provide free internet access" to figure out where the anonymous e-­‐mail account was established. The list also included Qwest accounts, hard-­‐drives, and servers that Veolia suspects might contain clues about who sent out the e-­‐mails. Terri McGraw, a laid-­‐off Veolia employee, also was targeted with subpoenas, according to court records.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐

Phoenix Let the International Firm Operating the City's Buses Dodge a Bill of More Than $2 Million
By Monica Alonzo Thursday, Mar 31 2011
Phoenix taxpayers have lost out on millions of dollars from Veolia Transportation, fees the corporate giant would have paid had city officials not given its executives a four-­‐month pass on poor-­‐performance fines.
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon lent his political support to a transit company that has his girlfriend, Elissa Mullany, on the payroll.
In October alone, the company that operates Phoenix city buses racked up nearly $560,000 in fines, mostly for arriving late to bus stops. In July, August, and September, Veolia's tab was more than $3 million, according to city documents.
However, transit officials tell New Times that a system glitch produced inflated fines for the first three months. In September, for example, an initial tally shows that Veolia amassed $1,091,369.18 in fines. A revised version of that report drops the amount to $559,081.
That means that instead of $3.5 million, the French transportation company dodged a bill for more than $2 million — still a sizable chunk of lost revenue for a cash-­‐strapped city that has reduced bus service in the wake of budget shortfalls.
Transit officials say the money would not have made a difference to the average bus passenger in the short term.
Since transit operations are largely funded by special city sales taxes, Phoenix public transit director Debbie Cotton says, the money would have gone toward shoring up the city's budget deficit — $142 million as of January — caused by declining tax revenue.
The majority of the fines Veolia would have gotten slapped with are for late buses. For example, buses showed up late — for various reasons — to bus stops at least 57,000 times in those four months.
If a bus is six minutes late, that's a $20 fine. The company pays $40 if a bus is 10 minutes late. The fines for late buses top out at $250 each time a bus shows up more than 30 minutes late to a stop along its route.
Cotton says the fines are in place to ensure that bus patrons receive the best service, not as a way to make money off the company. She says she would be happy if the city didn't collect any fines, because that would mean customers were getting exceptional service.

"We don't want them to arrive early; we don't want them to arrive late," she says. "We want them on time. Time is important in the world of transit. And this is a way to measure their performance."
Although the four-­‐month reprieve ended in October, Phoenix still hasn't collected any money from Veolia because transit officials say they are working out the kinks in the system that caused the initial miscalculation.
It is unclear how much Veolia will have to pay Phoenix for the past five months, but the money will be collected, Cotton stressed.
The forgiven fines are part of a complicated — yet cozy — relationship between Veolia and Phoenix officials, namely Mayor Phil Gordon.
Federal Transit Administration officials started questioning that relationship after New Times published "The Girlfriend Problem" (September 9), which revealed how Gordon helped Veolia muscle an extra $30 million from Phoenix to settle the old bus contract. That contract, also run by Veolia, expired on June 30.
It's easy to speculate about Gordon's motivation for lending a hand to the company, given that his girlfriend and former political fundraiser, Elissa Mullany, has been on Veolia's payroll as a consultant since 2007.
Mullany also was part of the team that helped prepare Veolia executives for interview panels, advising them on what questions to expect from the city and the type of responses the city wanted to hear.
While Gordon pledged his support for Veolia in June 2009, months before the City Council voted to award the company a $385 million contract, he declared a potential conflict of interest after going public with his romantic involvement with Mullany.
The mayor stopped participating on Veolia-­‐related issues at public meetings, but he continued advocating for them behind closed doors, out of the public's view.
Gordon's close friend Billy Shields also is a paid lobbyist for Veolia.
Representatives for Gordon's office and Veolia both confirmed that the two met and discussed the Veolia contract, despite Gordon's conflict. During one of their meetings, the mayor advised Shields to tell his client to walk away from its Phoenix contract because city officials wouldn't agree to Veolia's demands for more money. When Veolia followed through and reneged on the contract it was awarded, Phoenix officials flew to Chicago, where they agreed to pay Veolia nearly $30 million.
Later, when the time came for the City Council to discuss that settlement in executive session, before a public vote, Gordon was involved in those discussions, two elected officials tell New Times.

Presumably, the feds are looking at the relationships to determine whether Veolia had an unfair advantage. The feds asked another round of questions regarding Phoenix's contract with Veolia in early March, according
to city e-­‐mails. They wanted to know the terms of the contract and how much of it is funded by the FTA.
The 2010-­‐11 portion of Veolia's $385 million, five-­‐year contract, is $69.6 million, and the feds pitched in $15.6 million, or 22 percent.
Neither Leslie Rogers, FTA regional administrator in San Francisco, nor the agency's public relations office in Washington, D.C., will answer questions about their Phoenix inquiry.
In a five-­‐page letter to the FTA, Cotton explained that the contract tied to the nearly $30 million settlement was not federally funded. She also wrote that Gordon didn't vote on the new contract awarded to Veolia and that elected officials had nothing to do with negotiating the $30 million settlement.
Gordon may not have been at the Chicago meeting, but his advice to Veolia certainly prompted it.
Cotton's letter doesn't mention Mullany's involvement as a consultant for Veolia. Nor does it address Gordon's meeting with Shields. Nor how Gordon weighed in during closed-­‐door City Council meetings regarding the Veolia settlement.
Cotton, in her letter, says city officials and staff distinguished between the city's old bus contract with Veolia that expired last June and the new contract by treating them as "separate transactions and negotiations." She told the FTA that "no changes were made to the new contract," which is covered by federal funds.
It's a puzzling statement considering that the settlement agreement City Manager David Cavazos and other city officials hammered out in Chicago with Veolia executives clearly spells out the link between the two contracts and specifically calls for a change order to the new contract.
For instance, as part of the settlement, Phoenix agreed to eliminate a $50,000-­‐per-­‐day fine that Veolia would have had to pay the city if bus workers went on strike.
And the city agreed that the moratorium on fines in the event of a strike would be "reflected in a change order to the new contract," according to a copy of the settlement agreement provided to New Times by the city.
Cotton says she was referring only to the initial negotiations, that obviously there were tweaks made to the fines outlined in the new contract that would be charged to Veolia.
"Sometimes when you're facing a hard decision, you have to reach a compromise," she says. "I would have

wanted everything exactly the way I wrote it, but in the real world ... we can't get exactly what we want."
Phoenix New Times
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Phoenix Transit Workers Protest as Veolia Brings in "Strike Busters"
By Monica Alonzo Tue., Aug. 10 2010 at 2:37 PM
Veolia Transportation officials and representatives of the three local transit unions continue to negotiate labor
contracts and have managed to avoid a bus strike in Phoenix. So far.
But more than two-­‐dozen union workers who drive, fuel, clean, and repair Phoenix city buses protested, with bright-­‐colored signs in hand, this morning in front of the Hyatt Place in Tempe, where they discovered that Veolia execs already are stashing replacement workers in anticipation of a possible bus strike.
Billy Wingfield, a Veolia operation manager from Boise, Idaho, arrived in Tempe just last night.
"We're not here to replace them. We're here to help out, to do whatever is necessary to service the customer," Wingfield told New Times while he stood outside of the Hyatt Place, watching the transit workers march up and down the sidewalk. Other out-­‐of-­‐town workers watched from the hotel's balcony.
"I think this is just part of the process. The company has to prepare for the worst -­‐-­‐ but hope for the best," Wingfield said.
Union reps aren't happy because, in the midst of "good faith" negotiations, Veolia executives placed ads in the Arizona Republic seeking temporary bus drivers and have flown in about 200 replacement drivers and supervisors, like Wingfield, from all over the country.
Veolia officials said in a statement they are "committed to resolving the remaining issues with its unions," but have to be prepared in case an agreement is not reached. They said it was "a preventative measure only, focused on avoiding a total lack of transit service in the event of a work stoppage by the unions."
Labor contracts expired on June 30, but the Teamsters (employees who fuel and clean buses) and Operating Engineers (mechanics) agreed to extend their existing contracts until August 15. The Amalgamated Transit Union (bus drivers) extended its contract through September 30.
A joint statement released by all three labor unions stated that they all "plan to continue bargaining and have no plans to strike in the near future. If there is a strike, it is due to the bad faith bargaining on behalf of Veolia."
"We're out here because of the passengers, our customers" said Sebastian Aldama, a 20-­‐year Veolia employee and ATU member. "A majority of the people who use our buses are people in need. They depend on us. We want the public to know we're not interested in a strike. We're interested in continuing negotiations."

Workers are concerned because, while they have granted Veolia two contract extensions, Veolia has not yet decided whether it will grant an extension now requested by the Teamsters, says Jerry Ienuso, a Teamsters negotiator.
And if one unions strikes, they are all expected to walk. Talks with the Teamsters are expected to resume on Saturday.
Union officials might have some cause for concern, especially since Veolia officials were able to sucker Phoenix into waiving a $50,000-­‐a-­‐day fine that their company otherwise would have been required to pay if workers went on strike.
It's not a typo. Written into the five-­‐year city-­‐bus contract that started on July 1 was a steep $25,000-­‐a-­‐day fine for each bus facility (and Veolia operates two in Phoenix) that the company had to pay Phoenix to make up for the reduced levels of bus service.
Why would Phoenix give Veolia a pass on those sanctions meant to be an incentive for the company to avoid a strike and maintain bus service at full capacity?
Well, when Phoenix refused to ante up the money that Veolia wanted for expenses linked their old city-­‐bus contract, company officials told the city that they would walk away from the new contract. Giving Veolia a pass on strike-­‐related fines during initial negotiations was one of several concessions that Phoenix had to make in order to get the new contract signed.
Bob Bean, president of the ATU, predicts that is going to hand the Teamsters a final "take it or leave it" offer and not grant the extension. He believes that would rather have workers go on strike now and wait them out -­‐-­‐ when it won't cost them potentially millions in fines -­‐-­‐ instead of down the road when fines are back in place and workers have some leverage.
Phoenix New Times
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Veolia Transportation Says It "Highly" Values Employees, But Workers Say They Aren't Feeling the Love
By Monica Alonzo Wed., Oct. 27 2010 at 2:55 PM
Veolia Transportation continues to negotiate with two labor unions representing employees who drive and
maintain Phoenix city buses. Company execs have already inked a contract with the mechanics' union.
Negotiations have been ongoing since union contracts expired on June 30.
During that time, Phoenix officials have warned the public about potential strikes. Bus drivers have led a couple

of public protests objecting to Veolia bringing in replacement workers. And Veolia locked out about 60 bus maintenance employees for about a week after negotiations broke down.
Replacement workers took over, and union officials filed charges against Veolia with the National Labor Relations Board claiming, in part, that the company was not negotiating in good faith.
Company officials agreed to allow employees back on the job site and resume negotiations on the same day that Veolia was due to respond to union reps' allegations.
Veolia spokeswoman Val Michael has said that the company is hopeful that it will reach agreements with labor organizations.
It has been a very messy -­‐-­‐ and public -­‐-­‐ process that has created a dark cloud of uncertainty for passengers who rely on the 33 bus routes that Veolia operates in the Phoenix metro area.
Veolia CEO and President Mark Joseph wrote a letter to the City Council in August to assure them that the company "highly" valued Phoenix bus workers and residents.
Some workers, however, told New Times that they weren't feeling the love.
Non-­‐union workers had their pay slashed by about 40 percent earlier this year, lost all but 35 days of accrued sick time they had been allowed to save up for retirement, had to reapply for their jobs with Veolia -­‐-­‐ the exact same company -­‐-­‐ and sign a form waiving their legal rights to recoup "any and all" lost benefits if they wanted to keep their jobs.
"What are you supposed to do?" Lynn Melling, a former Veolia employee told New Times. "You either sign it or you're gone. That's basically what they told me. I asked them, 'When do I have to sign this?' They said, 'Today.' I didn't even have a chance to talk to my wife or a financial advisor."
Melling signed it, but later put in for early retirement when he realized that it was the only way he could save the more than $25,000 he had banked in sick leave during his 20-­‐plus years with the company.
"I can understand a cut in pay," Melling said. "But 40 percent? And losing benefits you worked for? I don't understand that. It was an ugly situation."
Melling, 61, and other Veolia employees believe they should have been given time to consider the offer forced upon them -­‐-­‐ especially since it entailed them losing money and waiving their rights.
Legal experts at the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) said that if workers are being asked to waive their rights, they have to do it knowingly and voluntarily.
It's difficult to say that employees "voluntarily" waived their rights when not doing so meant losing their jobs. And to satisfy, "knowingly," legal experts say case law requires that employers identify the statutes (which list employee rights) that they are asking employees to give up.erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

31

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

The letter that Veolia presented to Melling did not include that. It broadly stated that by accepting Veolia's offer to continue working for the company, "you waive any and all claims ...including, but not limited to, any claims for payment (either now or in the future) of sick leave..."
Melling and other workers told New Times they have filed complaints with the Arizona Attorney General Office and the EEOC. Neither agency will comment on whether they are looking into Veolia employees' claims.
Veolia employees weren't always at odds with their corporate leaders. In June 2009, union members showed up at a City Council meeting to speak in favor of Veolia operating the north and south bus facilities.
Phoenix transit officials recommended hiring separate transportation companies for each facility, but in the end, the City Council decided to go with a single operator: Veolia.
It hasn't worked out so well for Veolia's employees in Phoenix.
Veolia's Chief Operating Officer Ken Westbrook wrote to the City Council in September to counter what he
called "inaccurate information" being disseminated by some employees.
In the letter, he assure them that "Veolia is not (and has not been) seeking to reduce the current wage rate of any current employee."
That was about 10 weeks after a batch of employees had already been hit with an average pay cut of 40 percent.
As weeks turned into months, and Veolia still didn't (and doesn't yet) have contracts with all employees, it seemed corporate executives wanted to make sure Phoenix council members to know it wasn't Veolia's fault.
Joseph told the City Council that it was the unions who were "unwilling to share in the sacrifices that all stakeholders must make."
"No one likes these realities but we all have to face them and deal with them," Joseph wrote.
Westbrook, in his letter, also told elected officials that "it is imperative that our labor partners share some of the sacrifices that need to be made ..."
Meanwhile, the company bumped the salary of the current general manager to $180,000 (the previous GM made $134,000) and gave him free use of the corporate apartment and a company car and free flights back to his hometown of Las Vegas, according to e-­‐mail exchanges between Veolia executives.
Andy Marshall, an executive officer with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 104, also pointed out to the Phoenix City Council during a public meeting that Veolia's former maintenance manager made $85,000, but the new person in that position gets $158,000, plus a $15,000 annual pension payment and a company car.erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

32

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

Joseph wrote that union leaders were trying to "smear the reputation" of the company. He touted the company's desire to do what is in the best interest of Phoenix residents.
That wasn't so evident on in May when Veolia informed the city that it was simply walking away from its Phoenix bus contract, potentially leaving thousands of bus riders abandoned.
Company execs only agreed to continue providing bus service after Phoenix officials flew to Chicago, signed agreements to give Veolia nearly $30 million, promised not to go after $681,000 that Phoenix believes it paid the company in error and deleted contract provisions Veolia didn't like -­‐-­‐-­‐ including a $50,000 per day fine if workers go on strike.
Naturally, Joseph's letter didn't mention that it was Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon who suggested Veolia threaten to walk away from its contract. Or that Gordon's girlfriend is on Veolia's payroll and played a role in putting together the winning bid.
However, he included this: "It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. The same can be said for companies and organizations faced with challenge and controversy."
And Joseph is spot on -­‐-­‐ his company can be measured by how it has stood during challenging times.
Just ask Melling or one of the other non-­‐union employees who had to waive their rights in order to keep their jobs, who took a 40 percent pay cut while the general manager's base salary went up by more than 30 percent, who lost benefits they had earned and saved for their retirement over a decade or longer.
Phoenix New Times
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Bus Drivers’ Union Files Unfair Labor Practices Complaint Against Veolia
Post Published: 03 October 2011 Author: Rick Outzen
Order for Dismissing Motion for Temporary Injunction Circuit Court Judge Michael G. Allen from the First Judicial Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida issued a order dismissing a motion filed by Veolia Transportation, the Management Company that is contracted through Escambia County Board of County Commissioners to manage Escambia County Area Transit. Judge Allen noted in his decision that the Court found that it is without jurisdiction to consider issuing an injunction against the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 which has been accused of a “bad faith strike”. Union President Mike Lowery states, “Veolia mislead the citizens the day of the one day strike by saying we were conducting an illegal strike, now the citizens will know that Veolia Management was attempting to do only damage control”.

Veolia Transportation brings in “Scab” Drivers to replace Union Drivers at ECAT On Saturday, October 1, 2011, Veolia Transportation which manages Escambia County Area Transit has brought in about twenty replacement drivers if the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 which currently the labor contract between the two parties has expired as of midnight, Friday, September 30th, 2011. The Union reports that these drivers have been shipped in from other Veolia Transportation properties throughout the United States. Veolia which has stated that no raises are available for Union Transit workers are paying these workers higher wages, the IRS rate of $75 a day for per diem, and it is likely a bonus for assisting Veolia in this labor dispute. Veolia Transportation is also paying for airfare and hotel accommodations daily for these replacement drivers. Veolia spend Saturday and Sunday training the drivers from out of state on the routes provided to Escambia County. “Wow Veolia claims they don’t have any money but suddenly they have round the clock armed security and now they are spending thousands of dollars for “scab” drivers to replace our members who live, own homes, pay taxes right here in Escambia County” states Union President Michael Lowery.
Amalgamated Transit Union takes out radio air time against Veolia Transportation d.b.a. Escambia County Area Transit The Amalgamated Transit Union International office has taken out radio air time starting Monday, October 3, 2011 against the Veolia Transportation d.b.a. Escambia County Area Transit. The radio commercials will air on the following radio stations: WTKX-­‐FM (101.5), WKRH-­‐FM (96.1), WMXC-­‐FM (99.9) The commercials will state that Veolia Transportation while refusing to give raises to ECAT employees is still getting their scheduled increase in their Management contract with Escambia County. The commercials will also talk of the miss-­‐treatment of employees.
Amalgamated Transit Union files unfair labor practices against Veolia Transportation d.b.a. Escambia County Area Transit On Friday, September 30, 2011 the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 filed unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Board, Region 15 located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Union filed stating the Employer (Veolia Transportation/ECAT filed a frivolous lawsuit against the Union in retaliation for the protected concerted activity of the employer’s employees under the National Labor Relations Act. Also the Union filed unfair labor practices stating that since the one day strike the employer has engaged in surveillance and created the impression of surveillance, of its employees’ protected concerted activities. Veolia Transportation hired a security company to deploy armed and unarmed guards to patrol and station themselves on the property of ECAT in work areas, break rooms, and other areas where Union employees work and congregate. In the unfair labor practice filed by the Union the Union also states that since September 27, 2011 the employer has threatened to discharge and otherwise discipline employees for engaging in a strike. Which on September 21, 2011 the day of the strike the employer had agreed to bring back all employees unconditionally – Lastly the Union filed unfair labor practice that states on September 30, 2011 the employer has harassed employees in retaliation for supporting a strike. The day of the strike the Union also filed an unfair labor practice that the Employer violated the labor agreement by hiring more part time employees than agreed upon in the labor contract with the Union.
On Tuesday, October 4, 2011 a Federal Mediator ordered both parties to come to the negotiating table. The Union and Veolia Management will meet at 10:00 am at the Rosa Park Transit Complex. The Union plans to meet with their members that same night at the Rushing Plaza Building at 7:00 pm to update their members of the negotiations. “I don’t make the decision to strike, my members make that decision and we will see what they say Tuesday night”. States Michael Lowery, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395.

The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 sent an email to the Management of Pensacola Bay Transportation which provides the Community Transportation services for the mentally and physically handicapped and elderly in Escambia County and Santa Rosa County which the Union represents the drivers and mechanics. The Union sent an email Friday afternoon before the midnight expiration of the labor contract of the Para Transit workers stating the Union requested to extend the labor agreement till November 30, 2011. The Union as of Sunday, October 2, 2011 states that the employer never responded to the Union’s request. Therefore the Union understands that to mean the employer does not want to renew the labor agreement and therefore the workers at Pensacola Bay Transportation could also end up on strike.
“We’re telling our members at ECAT and Pensacola Bay Transportation to report to work at this time” state Michael Lowery, President of the Union. On the same night that ECAT employees voted to go on strike the members of Pensacola Bay Transportation voted to authorize the Union leadership to set a strike date when they feel it is needed. In November 2005 Pensacola Bay Transportation workers went out on strike for 77 days. That strike was believed to be the longest strike in Escambia County history. Those workers got a 21% wage increase over a three year contract after that strike. “Sadly these workers average wage is still below $10 an hour even with the 21% wage increase over 5 years ago” states Lowery.
“They are the lowest paid unionized Para-­‐transit workers in the country”, said Lowery.

Veolia Has A History Of Environmental Mishaps And Other Operational Problems
Written by David Greenwald
Wednesday, 19 October 2011 05:55
While we have, up until this point, focused on Veolia's role in the Israeli-­‐Palestinian conflict, perhaps the bigger problem that Veolia should face in gaining a contract with the Woodland-­‐Davis Clean Water Agency should be their handling of water issues in this state.
The DBO process is supposed to lock in lower rates and better results from a competitive bid process. But one common thread in both United Water which we covered on Tuesday and now Veolia is that the process actually results in higher rates and poorer service, as private companies seek to increase their profits.
The issue of public and private becomes critical because, while the DBO process is supposed to lock in the cost of a project, as companies seek to increase their profits it means that they necessarily have to cut other corners. This is the charge, both with United Water and now from our research on Veolia.
Indeed, as the New York Times reported back in 2009, those who supported the Veolia contract, which was five years and $15 million with the city of Novato, point to the fact that "it will save ratepayers $7.2 million."
However, as the New York Times article points out, "But money is just one metric for these systems, which are

regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. That law requires them to keep watersheds and beaches free of pollution -­‐ something Novato has failed to do."
The problems pre-­‐date Veolia, as the city's sewage district "purposefully discharged sewage into San Francisco Bay while preparing to build a $90 million treatment plant."
Reports the New York Times, "Veolia, a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, based in Paris, has had environmental problems elsewhere in the region. In a 2005 Richmond case, the nonprofit environmental organization Baykeeper and the West County Toxics Coalition sued the company, accusing it of discharging sewage into the bay. Veolia and Richmond, also a defendant, settled the case, agreeing to major upgrades."
One the key issues is the trend away from private companies. The NY Times notes, "Because three other systems -­‐ Fairfield-­‐Suisun and Petaluma in the Bay Area, and Stockton in the Central Valley -­‐ recently severed ties with private companies, people are closely watching this fight to see if the trend continues."
Recall that Fairfield-­‐Suisun was run by United Water.
"Mike Di Giorgio, president of the Novato board, said he was not bothered by Veolia's potential profits because he was confident the contract would save ratepayers significant money," the Times reports. "A 2002 report by the Pacific Institute, based in Oakland, noted that supporters of privatization usually argue that the private sector will deliver more or better services, while opponents say it could lead to higher costs, the potential for lost jobs or benefits and reduced local control."
"The devil is in the details, and the details are in the contracts," said Peter Gleick, the institute's president. "We've seen over and over where small municipalities rarely have the power or ability to negotiate good contracts."
Environmental groups cite problems with Veolia over how the company is run and compliance with environmental regulations.
"Veolia has a long record fraught with environmental problems, negligence and expensive service," said Adam Scow, the California deputy director of the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. Veolia has had problems with spills in other communities around the country, Mr. Scow added.
The worst part of this: the New York Times reports that Veolia has spent "$32,000 backing candidates supporting the contract in the recent board election; two won."
That should be a red flag for all involved and we would hope if the city puts the water rate hikes on the ballot, that the CWA would have to good sense to wait before awarding the contracts to a DBO bidder. We would hate to see Veolia pumping money into the Davis rate hike referendum.
The website opposing Veolia running the Sanitary District plant in Novato chronicles a number of violations by the company in the Bay Area alone.

A lawsuit was brought against Burlingame in 2008, "accusing Veolia of dumping more than 10 million gallons of wastewater and untreated sewage over a 5 year period into the San Francisco Bay."
In 2006, Veolia and Richmond were sued for "dumping more than 17 million gallons of sewage into tributaries...over the preceding three years." They add, "In 2002, the city gave the 20-­‐year, $70 million contract to Veolia, which promised to cut costs...An outside consultant concluded the sewers needed $18 million worth of upgrades -­‐ nearly three times the $6.4 million included in Veolia's plan."
Furthermore of note: "This suit was not the only costly consequence of Veolia's poor operation. For years, Richmond taxpayers had to shell out $500,000 annually to compensate other residents and businesses for property damage by the sewer system."
In 2007, the city of Petaluma voted to take back management of its sewer system from Veolia.
Food and Water Watch reported, "The city opted not to privatize the new plant after a cost analysis determined that public operation would be 'more efficient and effective than operation by a private contractor.' Petaluma expects to save $1.6 million over the first three years."
The page goes on to report additional problems across the county. While many of these involve sewage spills, the report on Indianapolis involves water.

"In 2002 Veolia signed a 20 year, $1.1 billion contract to privatize water service to more than a million people."
According to Food and Water Watch, "In 2005, a federal grand jury subpoenaed four Veolia employees as part of an investigation into allegations that the utility falsified water quality reports. The probe began amid accusations by Indianapolis council members that the company had cut back on staffing, water testing, treatment chemicals and maintenance."
Veolia has a history of problems there, including complaints that the company cut benefits to employees, consumer complaints that more than doubled in the first ten months of their contract, and a lack of proper safeguards.
"Although this investigation resulted in no charges, the corporation has had to question its own performance, after sustaining multimillion-­‐dollar losses for years after the takeover," the report continues.
"We did lose money, more than we anticipated," then-­‐Veolia President Tim Hewitt told the Indianapolis Star in 2005. In reference to the ardent public opposition to the deal, he added, "We'll get through this but have a black eye."
Except they did not get through, the city had to ultimately pay the compan additional money while reducing the company's responsibilities. Amazingly, "Indianapolis then sought to raise rates by 35 percent to pay for these additional expenses along with costlier capital improvement projects."
Finally in 2010 they had enough, and the city sold the water utility to a nonprofit Citizens Energy Group.
There are several common threads here. First, the city and the CWA is making an assumption that the DBO process will lock in costs. But that fails to take into account things such as what happened in Indianapolis -­‐ if the company mismanages the operations of the project, how do we assure that costs will be contained?
The legacy of private operations of water does not seem to produce the lower rates and higher service that we are being told will ensue.
Really, is the operation of a water company going to be all that different from energy? And yet it was not long ago that the cities of Davis and Woodland joined the rest of the county in hopes of bringing the public power company SMUD to Yolo County and replace the private PG&E company.
Why? Because, in part, public power was said to produce better service and lower costs. Is water really any different?
Finally, with very serious questions about two of the applicants, we must again raise the following questions. First, all of this information is readily available on the internet, so why is it that the city and the CWA failed to perform due diligence before naming Veolia and CDM, with United Water brought on as their "O" in the DBO process, as finalists?
Proponents of going forward at this point can, of course, suggest that the third company is clean so far, and

they may be. But gone is the competitive bid process that the CWA claims is vital to getting affordable bids.
Nor is this a costless process. Each company is being asked to expend in the millions just for the bid process and the CWA is looking at $250,000 per applicant.
Also is the fact that the CWA expressed skepticism about a fourth applicant, giving acknowledgement that only a few firms in this nation can do this kind of DBO project, and this should be a cause for alarm.
The lack of due diligence here should be especially concerning. I know the CWA is reluctant to pay more for an investigator, but it seems that money spent now could avoid future nightmares.
Bottom line, from every piece of research I have seen, we should question whether we go forward with this project with private firms driving the DBO process, particularly the "O" part.
davisvangaurd.org
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Phoenix Bus Drivers are on strike.
PHOENIX TRANSIT STRIKE
MARCH 10, 2012 BY: ROBERT MCDONALD
It is official, as of midnight this morning the bus drivers for Phoenix have began their strike against their employer Veolia Transportation. After two years of failed negotiations between the union and Veolia over wages for new and future drivers, sick time and treatment of employees by Veolia management.
This is response to the anti-­‐union people that are saying fire them all and replace them with new drivers.
Here are the issues:
1. Veolia Transportation Services wants to cut wages for new and future drivers from $12.00 to $10.00 per hour. This is being done despite the City of Phoenix giving Veolia an additional 20 million dollars for pay raises and benefit adjustments that are supposed to go to employees. What Veolia has done is pocket that money, gave raises to their upper management (Phoenix Gen. Manager went from $120k to $180K=$60K increase in salary) all the while crying poverty.
2. Veolia Transportation Services wants to cap sick leave to 64 hours banked and take away any accrued sick leave that has been banked over that threshold without compensation. Example some drivers that have 10-­‐20 years on the job have accrued over 200 hours of sick time which would be cashed out at retirement by being used to cover their time they took off over a month, or being used for FMLA or some other event. What the drivers are upset about is that those who have accrued this much time would lose it without and not be compensated for it since it is part of their compensation package that was promised and agreed to by both Veolia and the employee at the time of hire. If Veolia goes forward with this it would prompt a class action

lawsuit dragging taxpayers into it because they would have to defend the City and Veolia for this breach.
3.Retirement Benefits are another major issue, Veolia wants to do away with pensions and convert to a 401k plan. This was not acceptable to retirees and future retirees because the employees have paid into the system with their salary and is part of their compensation. Veolia failed to properly fill the accounts causing the City of Phoenix to give $10 Million dollars to catch up payments. Instead, Veolia pocketed the money, claimed poverty and is now trying to do away with the pension. By doing this it would prompt a lawsuit by the drivers because it was part of their employment compensation when they were hired.
4. Veolia Conduct-­‐ many on this board are asking what employment laws are being violated by Veolia. First off they are and are continuing to violate the National Labor Relations Act by bargaining in bad faith, refusing to meet with lawfully appointed representatives of the Union, failing to agree to basic contract terms; many that have been in placed since the 1970's, agreeing to then reneging on agreements, bargaining directly with employees (which is illegal), circumventing negotiations and undermining negotiations. Violating Weingarten rights when employees invoke them, and terminating employees without causes and without hearing in violation of the law.
Veolia claims that the average driver makes over $22.00 per hour. As a former driver for Veolia Tempe, I can say that this is a lie plain and simple. The only drivers that are making this kind of money are those who are in the top 30 in seniority and have been there for over 15 years and this pay level is due to annual raises, contract raises and cost of living increases to meet inflation. The average driver makes about $12-­‐13.00 per hour because of the constant turn over due to the stress of the job when dealing with Veolia management and the public. It is a disingenuous argument that Veolia is using to deceive the public.
Veolia is a multi-­‐billion dollar a year company based in France, they handle not only Bus services for Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa; but they also own Super Shuttle and various taxi and shuttle services nationwide and in Canada and Europe. They also own or manage water and sewer systems in North America and Europe.
If they can own all of this and pay their management all of this money, then why cant a driver who is trying to be a responsible citizen, pay their taxes, and put a roof and food on the table for their families be paid a decent wage and be treated fairly.
If employers treated their employees fairly we would not need unions, and like wise we would not need police if people can live together with out conflict. Since we have employers and corporations that would do anything up to and including getting politicians elected to change labor laws and the rules we will need unions and employee organizations to look out for our best interests.
Examiner.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Large private transit company lobbies Congress to gut public transit funding

MASS TRANSIT MARCH 11, 2012 BY: DAVID HERRON
Nassau Inter-­‐County Express #1835, wrapped in the new NICE livery departs the Freeport Railroad S
Private transit company Veolia Transport has been accused of lobbying Congress over HR7, legislation currently making its way through Congress which would (among other things) weaken public transit agencies, according to a StreetsBlog post on Friday. At the same time Veolia is taking over and gutting the Nassau Inter-­‐County Express (NICE) bus system, amid its continued expansion of transit system operation business around the world.
Veolia Transportation is a French-­‐based company with American headquarters in Illinois, and is one of the world’s largest private transportation providers. The company has operations in over 28 companies, and transports 2.63 billion passenger trips a year. For example, Veolia operates the "entire fixed route bus system" in Las Vegas, on behalf of the Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). On March 4, 2012, Veolia merged with Transdev, which that Veolia describes as a highly respected operator of bus and light rail networks, with extensive operations in Europe, Canada and Australia. The combined companies are now known as Veolia Transdev.
In other words, Veolia is one of these private companies going around claiming governments are inefficient, and privatising operations that have traditionally been performed by governments.
Veolia is also one of several private transportation operation companies that, through the Patton Boggs law firm, has been lobbying Congress to shape HR7, the extreme Transportation bill that, among other things, threatens to gut transit agency funding across the U.S. If HR7 becomes law public mass transit agencies would have an even harder time staying afloat, presumably resulting in widespread bankruptcies of those agencies, leaving a service vacuum for private transportation companies to step into.
HR7 is being pushed by extreme right-­‐wingers in the House of Representatives, and its provisions essentially gut funding for anything other than gasoline based cars, and would also expand oil drilling in both offshore and oil shale resources. This makes HR7, and its companion bills like HR3408, a huge gift to the oil industry.
On Jan 1, 2012 Veolia took over the Nassau Inter-­‐County Express (NICE) from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and on Feb 23, 2012, Veolia-­‐operated NICE announced it would cut back service on 30 routes and eliminate several weekend and midday bus lines. "I like to call it a reallocation of resources, ..." Veolia's Michael Setzer said. "We're taking all the money available from Nassau County and applying it much more smartly than it has been."
The decision to replace MTA with Veolia as the operator of the NICE bus was made by Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano. Veolia’s way into Nassau County was paved by former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s consulting firm, Park Strategies, which is still under contract to the bus company although the terms have not been disclosed.
Nassau County, one of the richest counties (in mean income) in the country, has refused to pay for its fair share of the Long Island Bus system. It's payments to the MTA have been $9.1 million a year, forcing the MTA to subsidize Nassau's bus service with millions of dollars a year. But in the current economic climate Nassau drastically cut its payment, and of course the MTA was fighting with the state over its own funding. In the wake of all this, the Long Island Bus system plans to cut dozens of bus lines beyond cutting the deal with Nassau.

A common critique of publicly owned transit systems is they never run a profit, and instead must be subsidized. However, is "profit" the correct motive for governments? Is profit the correct motive for transit agencies? “Normally transportation doesn’t make a profit anywhere in the world,” Columbia University Professor Elliott Sclar, director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development and author of “You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For: The economics of privatization,” says. “The real gain from a good urban transport system is that the economy does really well.”
One protestor, Irma Wallace of Springfield, Illinois, said “These private companies siphon profits out of our public services and we’re sick and tired of our municipal services being managed for private profit instead of public good.”
In the case of this Nassau County service, Veolia did add a few express routes, but the overwhelming majority of changes were service cuts. Veolia’s Long Island contract that it consult with a transit advisory committee for any cuts over 25%. Ryan Lynch at the Tri-­‐State Transportation Campaign said “Most of the cuts have been 23.8 percent or 24 percent, so they are going around the process.”
Examiner.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Veolia Execs Shouldn't Be Surprised By Bus Drivers' Strike; Feds Found Merit to Union Claims that Veolia Reps Bargaining in Bad-­‐Faith
By Monica Alonzo Mon., Mar. 12 2012 at 1:45
For nearly two years, Veolia executives have sat across the table from union representatives for Phoenix bus
drivers in an attempt to hammer out an employment contract for workers.
No deals have been reached, and finally, union officials called for a strike on Friday night.
Tempe bus drivers -­‐-­‐ who are also Veolia employees represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union -­‐-­‐ joined the strike because they have also not reached a contract agreement with the French-­‐based transit company. Veolia reps say that are surprised by the strike.
Surprised? After two years of failed negotiations?
Hard to imagine how the strike comes as a surprise given feds findings of "merit" to claims by union officials that Veolia has been negotiating in bad faith, doing things like going back on contract items that have already been agreed upon and undermining union talks by dealing directly with employees.
But, most people won't look beyond the bus drivers walking a picket line and buses parked in the garage instead of picking up passengers. And that's what the transit giant is counting on.
At last check, Phoenix buses were only operating at 20 percent. The $388-­‐million contract that Veolia was awarded in Phoenix specifies that the transit company had to keep service levels at least at 60 percent.
If the previous Phoenix administration, that is, former Mayor Phil Gordon, hadn't caved to Veolia and changed the terms of the city-­‐bus contract, the transit company might today have more incentive to end that strike. Here are some facts that may get overlooked as Valley bus passengers are scrambling to find alternatives ways to get to and from work or school.erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

42

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

Under the original contract, Veolia had to pay Phoenix $50,000 a day for each day that workers were on strike. Phoenix would have an extra $150,000 right now, but that provision was waived when Veolia threatened to walk away from Phoenix in 2010 -­‐-­‐ just weeks before the new bus contract was supposed to go into effect. Losing Veolia would have effectively left Phoenix scrambling to find another service provider. Instead, Phoenix settled, changed the original contract terms and handed Veolia nearly $30 million to settle the previous city-­‐ bus contract.
Veolia executives are doing it again -­‐-­‐ not with threats of walking away from its contract, but with the ongoing strike.
At issue this time is Veolia's push for Phoenix get rid of, or significantly reduce, fines the transit corporation has to pay for instances of poor service, such as buses not arriving on time or not being properly maintained and serviced.
Phoenix already waived more than $2 million worth of fines for Veolia, but the company wants more.
It's painfully clear that Veolia is using the employees' livelihood as leverage because on the cover of the contract Veolia offered the union is this sentence: "This proposal is dependent upon the resolution of other issues that Veolia has with the City of Phoenix."
Just a few weeks ago, Veolia wanted Phoenix officials to amend the fines that the transit company had to pay for when it didn't live up to the terms of its contract.. But the item -­‐-­‐ which didn't have the support of the city council -­‐-­‐ was yanked from the agenda.
Veolia didn't have any leverage when the matter was first placed on the Phoenix council agenda, but now, with a disruptive strike underway -­‐-­‐ guess what item is expected to make an appearance on the March 21 city council agenda?
Yep, a reconsideration of those pesky fines that Veolia is contractually obligated, and agreed, to pay in the event that it provided bus passengers poor service or didn't live up to Phoenix's expectations.
The sentence on the cover of Veolia's offer to bus drivers may as well read: "We will be happy to resolve union issues, end the strike and honor this proposal just as soon as we can get the city to once again cave into our demands and, not only get rid of those costly fines, but also reimburse us for the fines we've already paid." That would have at least been a more honest approach.
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, who inherited the transit mess from Gordon, tells New Times that he will work in good faith with Veolia on any issues they have with the city, but he first expects Veolia to negotiate with union reps until the issues are resolved.
But, Veolia would rather play politics and blame the strike on employees.
Veolia executives -­‐-­‐ who were awarded sizable bonuses on the same day that bus drivers' agreed to forfeit their own pay and go on strike -­‐-­‐ want the public to see this work stoppage as a case of greedy employees.
Veolia released a statement on Friday, in part highlighting that Phoenix bus operators are the "highest paid bus operators in the southwestern United States."
The statement cites that about 97 percent of drivers earn the current top wage rate of $22.52 per hour, before overtime.
But its doesn't explain that those top wages only come after an employee has been there for a decade or longer. And there certainly wasn't any mention of the bonuses that Veolia executives were handed.
Veolia also notes in its statement that its officials "remain committed to the good faith bargaining sessions." But the past two years hardly support the narrative Veolia executives are trying to create.
Consider that the National Labor Relations Board found that Veolia has repeatedly violated federal labor laws. In a response denying Veolia execs request for more time to answer the complaints, the regional director of the NLRB wrote:erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

43

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

"The number and severity of the alleged unfair labor practices in this case, as well as the fact that [Veolia] has failed to comply with a prior [NLRB] Settlement Agreement, makes plain that a postponement of the trial in this case is not warranted."
Other federal records show that the NLRB "found merit to allegations made" by union officials that Veolia was negotiating in bad faith, was undercutting talks by dealing directly with employees and putting back on the negotiation tables matter that both parties had previously agreed on.
A federal agency found merit to allegations that Veolia has been bargaining in "bad faith," and the corporate giant is "surprised" that workers went on strike.
Read more about how Gordon helped Veolia muscle $30 million out of Phoenix, about how his ex-­‐girlfriend was working for Veolia and coaching executives on how to win the contract, about how the feds are now investigating ties between Gordon and Veolia.
phoenixnewtimes.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
SPRINTER BRAKE WEAR LONG WENT UNNOTICED
Records indicate state body conducted about 50 inspections without detecting problem By Aaron Burgin 12:01a.m. Mar 21, 2013, updated 05:44p.m. Mar 20, 2013
north county — The brake rotor wear issue that forced the shutdown of North County’s Sprinter trains was not discovered during a routine inspection and, in fact, was only discovered by happenstance because state inspectors were following up on another brake problem.
North County Transit District officials say a maintenance contractor and a former district engineer knew about the uneven rotor wear for at least 18 months without informing superiors.
During that time, the California Public Utilities Commission conducted some 50 inspections of the light rail service without catching the issue, according to records obtained by U-­‐T Watchdog.
Commission inspectors finally identified the problem on March 1, while following up on a Jan. 14 failure in another area of the braking system.
During the January incident, a Sprinter train automatically halted because the air brake system failed. The operator was forced to unload passengers between stations. A follow-­‐up inspection on Jan. 22 revealed that the failure occurred within the air compressors that run air into the brake system.
When state regulators conducted a follow-­‐up visit on March 1, they identified the unrelated problem with rotors wearing unevenly, leading to the shutdown of the system on March 9 — the $477 million rail line’s fifth anniversary. The trains may be idled for four months while awaiting replacement parts from Europe.
“In January ... the brake system operated as intended,” NCTD spokeswoman Deborah Castillo said, referring to the automatic shutdown for passenger safety. “The follow-­‐up discovery of the rotors was purely coincidental.”
Officials with the utilities commission said they are not sure why the rotor wear was missed by their inspectors previously, but noted that action was taken within days of its discovery, meaning the system works.

“Our transit system inspection program identified the deficiency and took speedy action to deal with it,” Public Utilities Commission spokesman Andrew Kotch said. “The fact that CPUC staff identified the problem demonstrates the program’s effectiveness.”
STATE INSPECTIONS
Since the Sprinter opened in 2008, the state has performed more than 50 inspections of the Sprinter operation, including inspections of the track, signals and horns, mechanical and maintenance records, and the trains themselves.
For the most part, the findings were for less serious issues, such as a rail-­‐crossing gate being slightly lower than required, short horn sequences and holes in the right-­‐of-­‐way fencing. Two of the inspections came after an injury accident and a fatality on the line.
None of the state inspections mentions problems with the brakes until the failure in January.
Before the January incident, state inspectors examined the Sprinter’s brakes two other times, in September 2011 and in August 2012, according to state records.
During the many other state reviews, inspectors only checked the district’s maintenance records, which indicated that the brakes were in order.
At the utilities commission, Kotch praised California’s program. He said it’s the only state with dedicated rail inspectors. Other states follow federal guidelines that delegate inspection responsibilities to the local agencies and require the states to verify that the inspections are taking place.
In California, Kotch acknowledged, some inspections only review records. He said that’s because state inspectors play a dual role, enforcing both state and federal standards. The Federal Railroad Administration only requires that inspectors review the records, not inspect the vehicles.
NO MEASUREMENTS INCLUDED
North County Transit District officials have said at least one district employee and the maintenance subcontractor knew about the issues with the rotors for more than 18 months, but did not tell their respective superiors. The engineer says he did inform them, although not in writing.
The district’s preventive maintenance records gave no indication of any problems with the brakes.
Bombardier, which provides maintenance for the Sprinter vehicles and track, is a Canadian aerospace and ground transportation corporation with worldwide operations. It partnered with Veolia Transportation in 2007 to win the operation and maintenance contract for the Sprinter.
State inspectors noted in their March 1 report, during which they first discovered the issue with the rotors, that none of Bombardier’s preventive maintenance forms documented any abnormalities to the rotors.
They also did not include measurements of the rotors, which could have helped state inspectors discover the

issue sooner.
District officials said they are trying to determine why this was the case.
“The larger issue in this instance was the lack of reporting on the inspection reports that would have flagged the premature wear, and the failure by the NCTD rail maintenance engineer to report the rotor issue and to request funding to address the problem, and the failure to make sure the inspection reports submitted by the contractor reflected the problem,” Castillo said.
The Watchdog called and emailed Bombardier’s local mechanical manager, Brian Carroll, seeking comment, and did not receive a response. A phone call to Bombardier’s transportation unit spokeswoman was not returned.
Other agencies include rotor measurements on their inspection records, said Christopher Chow, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission.
The transit district’s maintenance report is essentially a checklist of the parts of the train that crews are supposed to examine, with a space on the first page for workers to detail any problems uncovered during the inspection.
The Transit District provided a sample of the maintenance reports. Next to the section that details how rotors are to be inspected, maintenance workers wrote the code “534,” which indicated that they checked the rotor measurements and found they met the manufacturer’s specifications.
When asked about the district’s confidence in Bombardier’s maintenance and what it has done to rectify any of the issues, Castillo said those questions would be answered during an ongoing investigation.
“These are good questions that, as we investigate the incident, NCTD will let the incident investigation facts and findings direct us to those answers when it is completed,” Castillo said. “To comment and provide conclusions at this time would be premature.”

The Veolia parent company is Veolia Environnement, a French multinational. Veolia Transport, a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, is a leading partner in the CityPass consortium, contracted to build a light rail tramway system linking west Jerusalem to illegal Jewish settlements such as Pisgat Ze’ev, French Hill, Neve Ya’akov and Gilo in occupied east Jerusalem. Once built, the rail system will help to cement Israel’s hold on occupied east Jerusalem and tie the settlements even more firmly into the State of Israel. And not only the settlements in east Jerusalem: the project states that the “Ammunition Hill” station of the network will operate as the feeder station for settler traffic from Ma’aleh Adumim, a large Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and from Jewish settlements in the Jordan Valley.erynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

46

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

The complete system is due for completion in 2020, with Veolia responsible for the operation. The first line will open in 2010. With its involvement in this project, the company is directly implicated in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and is playing a key role in Israel’s attempt to make its annexation of the Palestinian territory of east Jerusalem irreversible. As a willing agent of these policies, Veolia is undermining any chance of a just peace for the Palestinian people.
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the annexation of East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. Numerous UN resolutions and the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall have confirmed this. The settlements violate Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which provides that:: “...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as well as Article 53, which forbids destruction of property. These violations in some cases in east Jerusalem amount to war crimes, i.e. “grave breaches” of the Convention, (see Articles 146 and 147), as they involve appropriation of Palestinian property not justified by military necessity. These grave breaches are being facilitated by Veolia’s participation in the construction and future operation of the tramway serving the settlements.
In November 2006, ASN, a Dutch bank, broke off financial relations with Veolia on account of the light rail contract. Veolia also runs Luas, Dublin’s light rail system, but has been forced by Trade Union pressure in Ireland to cancel a proposed deal to train drivers and engineers for the Jerusalem light rail. In 2007 AFPS, a French NGO, and the PLO, started court cases in France against Veolia Transport and Alstom, another CityPass partner, to get their contract for the tramway invalidated on the grounds that its aim breached the French Civil Code as being in contradiction with public order and good morals (see http://electronicintafada.net/v2/article9104.shtml).
Meanwhile, Veolia Environmental Services runs waste collection and recycling for several local authorities in the UK and so provides a local target for appropriate action. It is clear from the parent company’s annual reports and website that the company is one coherent whole and so the misconduct of one division is the misconduct of Veolia as a whole and all divisions and subsidiaries are implicated. Veolia Water and Veolia Transport are also UK subsidiaries. Action so far
Lambeth and Camden PSC branches have asked their borough councils not to sign or maintain contracts with Veolia, but have up to now been unable to counter the argument that to simply boycott or blacklist Veolia would be illegal. Portsmouth Network Veolia Campaign supporters have met the same response from Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton councils, who also refused to ask Veolia to pull out of the tramway project. Portsmouth Network was unsuccessful in getting the local press print letters about the issue.
Portsmouth campaigners have written to the CEO of Veolia Environmental Services UK (no reply) and also John Gummer, Chairman of Veolia Water UK, and a Conservative politician. Gummer replied, concluding “Veolia Environnement will continue to look closely at the issues surrounding this matter”. Campaigners have also urged managers of ethical funds to avoid investing in Veolia, and local shops to switch their rubbish collection contracts from Veolia to another supplier. Important Recent Developments
A lawyer from Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR) has overseen significant research that makes a strong legal case for local authorities excluding Veolia Environmental Services from bidding for local authority

contracts. This will enable campaigners to challenge local authorities with compelling arguments based on the current law, primarily the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.
The main points of the legal argument are:
* The Veolia Group is one commercial entity, so any part of it is implicated in the misconduct of any other
part. * Under the Public Contract Regulations 2006 a company may be excluded from bidding if it has “committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of its business”. * Through Veolia Transport’s participation in the CityPass consortium project, the whole Veolia Group, including its subsidiary Veolia Environmental Services, is implicated in facilitating Israel’s violation of Articles 49 and 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention. These violations in some cases in east Jerusalem amount to grave breaches of the Convention (i.e. war crimes). * The UK’s Office of Government Commerce cites examples of grave misconduct sufficient to exclude companies from contracts, including transgressions relating to labour rights, health and safety, and the environment. Facilitating serious and far-­‐reaching breaches of international law, including war crimes, is at least as serious misconduct as the examples cited. * Veolia also violates international standards specifically established for business: * The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2000) state that enterprises should “Respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government’s international obligations and commitments”. The Palestinians’ land is illegally taken to build the tramway and they have to endure illegal settlements planted in their midst. * The UN Global Compact (2000), of which Veolia is a member, states that businesses should support and respect the protection of international human rights within their spheres of influence, and make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Violation of these international standards also amount to grave misconduct. (The conduct does not have to be illegal, let alone criminal, to be grave).
It is hoped that a legal challenge will soon be mounted to stop a local authority renewing its contract with Veolia.
Once the Solicitor’s initial letter has been drafted it will be made available to campaigners so they can adapt it for use to challenge local authorities themselves. Councils without contracts with Veolia could be asked to exclude them from any future bidding; those with contracts due for renewal in the next year or two could be asked not to renew them; and those with long term contracts might even be asked to terminate them.
If they do not give a satisfactory response, legal action could be the next move. Irrespective of the outcome, legal action itself will be a significant opportunity for creating greater public awareness of Israel’s violations of international law.
French Court to Hear Israeli Tram Case -­‐ April 2009
Palestinian lobby groups that contest Israel’s authority over East Jerusalem have found they might be helped via an unexpected route: a French court.
The court decided to take up the case against French companies contracted by Israel to build a tram line that runs deep into East Jerusalem from West Jerusalem.

A Franco-­‐Palestinian human-­‐rights association challenged the companies’ participation, arguing that the line is designed to consolidate Israeli control over Arab districts seized after the Six-­‐Day War in 1967. Most Israelis regard East Jerusalem as part of Israel’s undivided capital.
The group, Association France-­‐Palestine Solidarité, filed the complaint against Alstom SA and Veolia Environnement SA two years ago, arguing that the 8.3-­‐mile project violates international law because East Jerusalem isn’t sovereign Israeli territory. About half of the line is already built.
Veolia and Alstom quickly responded to the complaint by saying that the Nanterre court had no jurisdiction over the case and that the association’s claims were groundless.
An official of the tribunal of Nanterre near Paris said the court ruled late Wednesday that it does have jurisdiction in the case. The tribunal, however, rejected on technical grounds a request by the Palestine Liberation Organization to be a co-­‐plaintiff, the court official said. PLO representatives didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Now the court will start looking into the substance of the complaint unless Alstom and Veolia exercise their right to appeal within one month. The companies both said they had been notified of the ruling, and an Alstom spokesman added the company will take time to study the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.
"The tribunal has backed our arguments; it’s a positive step," said the association’s secretary-­‐general, Sylviane de Wangen.
Middle East Watch
What is Veolia?
According to a story broken by the Riverfront Times, St. Louis city lawyers have been negotiating a contract with Veolia Water North America to guide cost-­‐cutting. Veolia Water is a major subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, a Paris-­‐based multinational corporation and the largest water privatization business in the world. Veolia is infamous for:
·∙ Failure to make good on promised improvements
·∙ Anti-­‐labor practices
·∙ Privatizing public resources
·∙ Irresponsible to disastrous environmental practices ·∙ Mismanagement
·∙ Corruption, bribery, embezzlement, and fraud

·∙ Supporting and profiting from segregation and discrimination in Palestine Worldwide, consumers report that Veolia consistently charges high rates, provides poor service, causes staff turnover, discourages water conservation, and fails to implement promised improvements. Its history reveals consistent prioritization of private profit at the expense of the environment and public welfare. Unless otherwise indicated, the following is based on extensive research and documentation on Veolia’s practices by Water for All, Polaris Institute, Global Exchange, Novato Friends of Locally Operated Wastewater, Public Citizen, Public Water Works, and Food & Water Watch (here, here, here, here, here). What happened in Indianapolis? In its proposal to the St. Louis Water Division, Veolia extensively references its work in Indianapolis as a successful model that could inform Veolia’s guidance in St. Louis. If Indianapolis is any indication of Veolia’s practices, then our city would do well to steer clear. Veolia claims that the contract was completed and “focused on building a collaborative environment with all of the project stakeholders (union, government and the community).” In fact the company’s 20-­‐year contract with Indianapolis was terminated by the city less than halfway through, by which time the following had ensued:
• Non-­‐union employees claimed that the company cut retirement plans, health care and other benefits, costing the workers more than $50 million over 25 years. Hundreds of employees, many organized under a strong union, found themselves in a pitched battle with the company to preserve benefits and hold Veolia to its promises.
Veolia was sued for breaking state contract law, and for overcharging 250,000 residents.
Because the company lacked proper safeguards, a typo by an employee caused a boil-­‐water alert for more than a million people, closing local businesses and canceling school for 40,000 students.
An independent review uncovered lax oversight of the city’s contract with Veolia.
Consumer complaints more than doubled in the first 10 months of the contract.
In a study of 100 large U.S. cities, Environmental Working Group ranked Indianapolis drinking water quality #90
(i.e. 11th-­‐worst overall). St. Louis ranks #9 -­‐-­‐ among the best in the country. In 2005, a federal grand jury subpoenaed four Veolia Indianapolis employees as part of an investigation into allegations that the utility falsified water quality reports. The probe began amid accusations by Indianapolis council members that the company had cut back on staffing, water testing, treatment chemicals and maintenance. Though Veolia was never charged, the corporation sustained multimillion-­‐ dollar losses and dug its way out of this hole by finagling concessions, including a 2007 contract amendment shifting at least $144 million in costs from Veolia to the city. Ignoring public outcry from consumers and state officials, the city then tried to raise rates by 35% to pay for these additional expenses and more expensive capital improvement projects. In 2010, with infrastructure needs mounting and Veolia demanding more than the city could afford, Indianapolis canceled the contract more than 10 years early, for which they were forced to pay Veolia an additional $29 million. The nonprofit Citizens Energy Group took over, positioned to save the city more money than multinational Veolia was ever able to. If Veolia gives Indianapolis as an example of a success story, what could a failure possibly look like?
New Orleans -­‐-­‐ an Environmental Disaster, and Other Cities In 2001 in New Orleans, an electrical fire at a sewer treatment plant operated by Veolia caused operators to divert raw sewage into the Mississippi River for

two hours. In 2001 and 2002, the plant released sewage into the river a total of 50 times, often violating water quality standards and resulting in more than $107,000 in fines. The city’s Sewerage and Water Board Director and staff made numerous, repeated and documented complaints about Veolia reducing staff to inadequate levels, neglecting preventive maintenance, failing to notify city officials of environmental violations, and other problems. Veolia has a long track record of failing to communicate with New Orleans in connection with the contract. In 2002, the board rejected Veolia’s bid for a new water/wastewater contract following public outrage. In Richmond, CA in 2006, the city and Veolia were sued for dumping more than 17 million gallons of sewage into tributaries that empty into the San Francisco Bay. The Baykeeper watchdog group said Richmond had one of the highest spill rates in the state. The city had given a 20-­‐year, $70 million contract to Veolia, which promised to cut costs and develop and implement an improvement plan for the sewer and storm water systems. By the time of the lawsuit four years later, the company had not even finished designing the plan, much less begun the renovations. Richmond settled the lawsuit out of court by agreeing to pay for multimillion-­‐ dollar improvements to reduce sewer spills. In addition, Richmond taxpayers had to shell out $500,000 annually for years to compensate residents and businesses for property damaged. Even after the lawsuits, the problem continues: Veolia’s Richmond plant had 22 spills dumping more than 2 million gallons of sewage during the first two months of 2008.
Lynn, MA ended a wastewater overflow plant contract with Veolia because the company failed to stay adequately bonded for the project. While company officials lauded the continuing contracts with water and wastewater treatment plants in the community, the town rapped the company for cutting costs by refusing to properly treat wastewater with chemicals. As a result, the town was blanketed in a stench.
Angleton, TX terminated a Veolia contract for non-­‐performance and took the company to court, charging that it breached its contract by failing to maintain adequate staffing levels, not submitting capital project reports and charging improper expenses to the maintenance and repair tab picked up by the city.
In Atlanta, Veolia tried to maximize revenue simply by slashing the work force in half, contributing to boil-­‐water orders, maintenance backlogs and other issue that ultimately led to dissolution of the contract.
In Sauget, IL, right across the river, a related Veolia subsidiary operated a hazardous waste incinerator for over 10 years without a clean air permit. In 2005, “the owners agreed to pay $150,000 for alleged air pollution violations.” As of 2008, the facility had been fined more than $3 million,” mostly related to small explosions and releasing toxic chemicals, including carcinogenic dioxins, into the air.
For more examples, see: Burlingame, CA; Wilmington, DE; Port Arthur, TX; Cranston, RI; and others. Bribery, Corruption, Embezzlement, Fraud
Corruption, bribery, embezzlement, and fraud appear to part of Veolia’s corporate culture. The president of a Veolia subsidiary was convicted of bribing a New Orleans sewer board member to support renewal of its contract (see background above) in 2002. The same year, the mayor of Bridgeport, CT was convicted on 16 counts including taking kickbacks, bribes and extortion along with 8 other defendants a contract proposal from Veolia (then called Vivendi). A forensic audit in Rockland, MA led to contract termination amid embezzlement charges involving a sewer department official and a local company executive charged with embezzling more than US$300,000. Veolia disclosed accounting fraud in the U.S. from 2007-­‐2010 amounting to $120 million. Theerynyula@atu1555.org EDITED FOR BREVITY. SOURCES NOTED.

51

Who has BART hired for contract negotiations?

scandal took place in their Gulf of Mexico Marine Services unit. These are small examples of a pattern of Veolia replicated around the country and world.
Would this contract privatize the city’s water?
No -­‐-­‐ not yet. But the contract would position Veolia -­‐-­‐ which specializes in water privatization -­‐-­‐ as a “brain-­‐ trust” of management expertise in reducing costs. Many view Veolia and focusing on privatizing services through long-­‐term monopoly contracts rather than through outright ownership. These types of “advisory” roles can serve as a backdoor avenue toward eventually privatizing municipal operations.
Supporting Apartheid and Segregation in Israel/Palestine
Veolia is involved in Israel’s systematic ethnic discrimination against the Palestinians in many ways:
An Israeli subsidiary, Veolia Water -­‐ Israel, operates a wastewater treatment plant located in an illegal Jewish-­‐ only settlement called Modiin Ilit, built on Palestinian land in the West Bank. The owners of the land on which this settlement was built have been violently driven out. Two unarmed Palestinians from the Palestinian village on which Modiin Ilit was built, have been killed as they protested nonviolently against the ongoing confiscation of their land and resources. Veolia continues to service the settlement.
An Israeli subsidiary of Veolia Transdev, Connex -­‐ Israel, operates buses on segregated roads through the occupied West Bank, including two bus lines that use road 443, which is built partially on confiscated land with portions closed entirely to Palestinians. A separate but unequal Palestinian road system is made up of low grade roads cut by checkpoints and physical barriers restricting Palestinian freedom of movement. Last year, Palestinian Freedom Riders attempted to board buses operating on their own land and were violently removed and arrested. Veolia is profiting from segregation and discrimination.
Another Israeli subsidiary, Veolia Environmental Services -­‐ Israel, supervises, consults for, and operates the Tovlan Landfill in the occupied Jordan Valley, collecting refuse from illegal settlements. Israel renders it almost impossible for Palestinians in the Jordan Valley to gain permits to build homes, toilets, wells, animal pens, or other vital infrastructure for local communities, which has forced almost all Palestinian families out, with those remaining living in dire conditions. Some are left with no alternative but to work on settlements that have taken their families’ land, for pay far below the minimum wage, unable to take bathroom breaks, and denied any rights to unionize. Veolia takes captured Palestinian land and natural resources to service the settlements exploiting or driving out Palestinians.
UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk recently recommended that Veolia “should be boycotted, until they bring their operations into line with international human rights and humanitarian law and standards.” Veolia’s extensive profiting from Israel’s illegal practices have provoked global outcry, costing Veolia more than $16 billion in lost contracts to date. Recently, the Friends Fiduciary Corporation, which handles investments for hundreds of U.S. Quaker institutions, also divested from Veolia.
Veolia already in Financial Trouble
With public opinion shifting negatively around the world, Veolia is paying a price. After a 25-­‐year contract,

Veolia’s home city of Paris declined to renew its contract in 2009. Cities around the world have done the same. Veolia’s profit margin has plummeted since 2008 and the company lost more than half its market value in 2011. Veolia’s CEO pledged to sell $1.8 billion of assets and to stop operations in at least 37 countries. In September 2012, Veolia’s debt stood at more than $19.7 billion.
Now, Veolia is trying to bring its risky and immoral business to our backyard. St. Louis tax dollars and water payments should not go toward supporting environmental destruction, unfair labor practices, corruption, and human rights abuses.
Let’s call on the Board of Estimate & Appointment not to approve this public contract with Veolia.
endtheoccupation.org

Who is Bruce Conhain?
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, July 18, 2001
BARGAIN PAY: The other day we told you about the more than $700,000 BART has spent so far on the salaries of some 38 workers and 14 managers who have been holed up for more than three months trying to negotiate new labor contracts.
Well, as it turns out, BART also has a whole list of expensive, outside consultants lending a hand on the talks
as well.
For instance, Thomas P. Hock & Associates, the chief outside negotiator assigned to deal with one of BART's unions, has been paid $50,000 so far -­‐-­‐ and is authorized to receive nearly twice that amount, BART
officials confirmed.
A second outside negotiator, Bruce Conhain & Gummerson, has likewise been paid $50,000 to work on a new BART police contract.
John A. Dash & Associates has been paid $10,000 for a salary survey of other transit districts.
Shannon & Associates has received $5,000 for police survey data related to the negotiations, and is authorized to receive as much as $49,500.
And although outside media man Sam Singer has not submitted any bills yet, BART officials tell us his going rate is anywhere from $90 to $300 an hour.
Like we said, these bargaining talks don't come cheap.

Union asks BART to get talks on track
Sandra Ann Harris, SPECIAL TO THE EXAMINER
Published 4:00 am, Friday, August 15, 1997
OAKLAND -­‐ BART workers told transit directors Thursday to get serious about contract talks or face a strike when Gov. Wilson's 60-­‐day cooling-­‐off period expires Sept. 7.
Robert F. Smith, representing 797 train operators and station agents, urged the directors to instruct negotiators to "get busy now and negotiate."
The workers and their union negotiators accused the transit district of stalling and told directors they are angry over an offhand remark reportedly made by a BART negotiator at the bargaining table.
The BART representative reportedly told union negotiators that the transit district isn't worried about a strike

because the system's 265,000 daily riders could always resort to taking their bikes to work.
BART negotiator Bruce Conhain at first denied making light of a strike, but later conceded that he did make the remark. He said it had been "misinterpreted."
Prudence Slaathaug, who is negotiating on behalf of 225 middle management and professional workers, said the bike comment illustrated the "cavalier attitude" BART negotiators have toward the ongoing labor dispute.
Conhain, a $150-­‐an-­‐hour labor consultant hired by the district for the union talks, and other BART officials refused to comment Thursday on the progress of the negotiations. The unions want wage increases and more benefits, such as dental and medical plans, among other demands.
BART and the unions opened collective bargaining in April with unions representing station agents, train operators, mechanics, maintenance workers, and professional and clerical staff.
Contract agreements covering about 2,800 workers represented by five unions expired on June 30, and Wilson, at the request of the BART board of directors, ordered the cooling-­‐off period.
Union officials say BART negotiators have refused to come up with a contract proposal. BART says it won't talk about wages until the unions withdraw their request for more benefits, which BART says would cost the district $40 million.
BART board President Margaret K. Pryor denied that BART was dragging its heels in the ongoing contract talks.
sfgate.com
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
Contract talks start at Foster Farms
The talks, and perhaps the fight, is ramping up at Foster Farms in Livingston.
In September, a solid majority of the 2,400 employees at this Central Valley chicken processing plant voted to affiliate their independent union with IAM District 190. For months, the company refused to recognize the validity of the election, even though it was fully certified by the National Labor Relations Board. Finally, in April, a federal court in Fresno issued an injunction against the company, forcing them to the bargaining table.
Foster Farms’ team is headed up by Bruce Conhain, a legal consultant whose name is familiar to many Local 1101 members because he represented the South Bay Auto Dealers Association.
“We put forth 16 counter-­‐proposals to the employers’ last best and final offer, which is now over a year old,” explains Howell. “When we met again on May 23, the company basically came in and said “No, no, no, no, no’ to every one of our proposals.”
The union would prefer to create a partnership with the company to work in the best interests of the members. Instead, the company is working hard to frustrate and delay the process. “By playing lots of games with the

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT Hubert Humphrey had a ready reply when asked to take sides on an issue of dispute between political allies. "Some of my friends are for it and some are against it," Humphrey would say, "and I'm sticking with my friends."
The struggle between Santa Cruz Planned Parenthood and the Service Employees International Union Local 415 is shaping up to be one of those intractable conflicts between two sides that share the same friends and in which nobody wants to choose sides.
Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Cynthia Mathews, who is not a member of management's negotiating team, won't discuss details as long as negotiations are in progress. She was unable to put Metro Santa Cruz in touch with management's consultant and chief negotiator, Bruce Conhain, who was out of town. Calls to Conhain's Fairfield office were not returned.
LAST MONTH, in an effort to jump-­‐start the negotiating process, four prominent Local 415 supporters sent out a letter to community leaders on SEIU letterhead asking them to write to PPMM Executive Director Linda Williams in San Jose in support of the union.
The letter was signed by Assemblyman Fred Keeley, Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt and former Santa Cruz mayors John Laird and Jane Weed, and included a list of 36 other supporters.
The SEIU letter accuses PPMM of hiring "a highly paid anti-­‐union consultant to fight the workers." Trying to use the issue of "choice" to its advantage, the SEIU letter says Planned Parenthood is denying its workers the same "choice, self-­‐determination and empowerment" it offers to its clients. It then says that PPMM rejected union proposals for a union shop, dues deductions, overtime pay, shop steward representation, seniority rights and just cause for dismissal.
Mathews' letter also says that several PPMM employees were so upset at the "antagonistic" tone of the SEIU letter "that they have communicated their dissatisfaction to SEIU." She also defended the hiring of by PPMM. Objecting to the "highly paid, anti-­‐union" tag, she referred to as someone "who is known

for his constructive style" of labor relations.
In an interview conducted during a tour of the Planned Parenthood facility in Santa Cruz, Mathews ticks off a list of complaints concerning the SEIU letter, beginning with Conhain.
"Conhain has a history of reaching successful negotiated settlements," says Mathews. "We did not hire an anti-­‐union consultant."
In Sacramento, she says, Conhain negotiated an open shop with the SEIU, on behalf of the Sacramento PPMM facility. She says a provision was included in the contract that required workers who did not want to join the union to donate to charity in lieu of dues, so that the cost of dues would not be an issue in whether to join the union.
Furthermore, union officials dispute Mathews' claim that Conhain negotiated a mandatory charitable contribution option for Planned Parenthood employees in Sacramento.
"They took out the charitable contribution" in the 1997 contract, says Sacramento SEIU Local 535 organizer Larry Gerber. "They demanded a completely open shop." Gerber says the union had the charitable contribution option in the previous contract, but Conhain and PPMM "kept pounding away at it" until it was taken out. Werlin says PPMM has made no formal proposal for a mandatory charitable-­‐contribution option in Santa Cruz.
As for the SEIU allegation of Conhain's high pay, SEIU officials in Oakland who dealt with Conhain as a management consultant during last year's BART strike say his fee then was $150 an hour. Mathews would not discuss Conhain's current fee.
Negotiations have been in hiatus since early May, when Conhain left town. They are to restart June 27.
Marcy Golden and Marian Morris trace the slow pace of contract negotiations to management consultant Bruce Conhain.
Conhain the Barbarian?
BUT TALKS WITH UNION officials here and elsewhere suggest that they believe there is a villain here, and Conhain is it. Despite assertions from PPMM that Conhain was hired because of his record of positive labor relations, that has not been the experience of two other union locals that have dealt with him.
Gerber sat across the table from Conhain in Sacramento, and was reluctant to speak on the record, but he suggested that from the point of view of his SEIU local, PPMM could

have made a better choice.
"There are other labor consultants they could have elected to use that could have reached an agreement without a lot of posturing," says Gerber.
Others are less reticent. Michael Haberberger was the chief negotiator for SEIU during the negotiations over a new contract for BART employees last September. The union struck for a week before a deal was reached.
"When Conhain did speak, what he said was antagonistic. He didn't help us at all in settling," says Haberberger. "He gave speeches on how the employees should appreciate what they already had.
"He liked metaphors, such as how improving our contract would be like putting sugar on ice cream. He would not talk about substance. We ended up in the same place we would have ended up anyway with or without him. He did nothing to help avoid a strike, and was no help to management. I don't know what they were paying him for."
Marian Morris says her negotiating team has had similar problems with Conhain. "We've asked to meet without him, but they have refused," says Morris. "It might be a
good idea not to have those meetings with him."
When asked if she would characterize his contributions as unconstructive, she said "yes."
"I don't think he's necessary to the process. If it were up to him we wouldn't have a good contract," says Morris. "Usually unions get framed as bad for management and good for workers. I disagree. But I think Conhain would agree with that."
Co-­‐worker Marcy Golden, who has not taken part in the negotiations, says the impression among the workers is that Conhain is at fault for the slow pace of negotiations.
"He seems to be the one dragging out the process," says Golden. "It seems we could have moved forward more quickly without him guiding them."
From the June 25-July 1, 1998 issue of Metro Santa Cruz
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐